Jump to content

Talk:Elliot Page/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

He/they pronouns

Elliot announced he wants to be referred to using he/they pronouns. The pronouns throughout have quickly been changed to he, which I applaud all editors for, but I'm now seeing multiple edits changing some pronouns to they. I haven't been able to find something in the MOS for this, but shouldn't we stick to one pronoun to avoid confusion?

Until/unless we get a statement from Elliot about this, keeping pronouns consistent within the article seems sensible to avoid confusion. In the absence of any other reason to choose one pronoun over the other for the article, going with "he" (as the first-mentioned pronoun in the tweet) seems sensible. Tristanjlroberts (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In the post they listed he/they as their pronouns. Should possessive nouns use the masculine form? Or should it be gender neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.154.32 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Normally someone saying their pronouns are he/they would be that both he/him/his/himself & they/them/their/themself/ves are ok. So from this tweet alone, lacking other information, both his & their would seem to be acceptable Tristanjlroberts (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand that that is what he/they means, but I am talking about Wikipedia specifically. Without further clarification (which there only seems to be far down the article) using he and they interchangeably leads to confusion as to whether a singular they is meant or not. Coretteket (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why possessive pronouns ought to be any different from any other pronoun form here. As in the preceding topic, I think consistency is probably the most important thing here for clarity. Until or unless we hear any news from Elliot, using he/him/his/himself is entirely in keeping with his stated wishes, and much clearer than alternating, using some sort of interleaved pronoun set, or any other mixed system Tristanjlroberts (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on what? There is absolutely no reason to believe that's what he meant when he indicated that either he or they pronouns are appropriate. Honestly, I don't mean to sound rude, but based on the bizarre fights you're picking it seems like you haven't read MOS:GENDERID at all, which would seem to be a minimum standard for editing the article of a trans person. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Vaseline, please note MOS:GENDERID. All these issues (what name/pronoun to use in which case, etc.) have been hashed out extensively over there. A bio talk page is not the right place to discuss changes those decisions. I recommend taking a look at the MOS's talk page to learn more about how consensus was reached. 李艾连 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, MOS:GENDERID offers no guidance at all about how to decide on pronoun use when a person provides both "he" and "they" as preferred pronouns. I don't think Vaseline's proposal makes sense, but it doesn't make sense either to pretend GENDERID says things that it doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. I really just meant that it's not appropriate for us to make up a rule in one person's bio's talk page and then start applying it throughout their filmography. The right thing to do is avoid edit wars and leave any correct pronouns unchanged (e.g., if an article uses he or they, keep it that way, if it uses she, pick he or they and correct).李艾连 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, true, it doesn't, but coincidentally or not, right above MOS:DEADNAME which is linked from MOS:GENDERID (namely WP:CHANGEDNAME), it says
A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy, so material about the time before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani. In some cases, it is helpful to the reader to clarify, e.g.: Albino Luciani (later to become Pope John Paul I). The principle of avoiding anachronistic naming is also usually employed in the subject's own biography (including that of John Paul I), especially when the article is no longer a short stub.
So while this may or may not be the best course of action with regard to gender, it shows at least there is a similar precedent on Wikipedia for something similar, so I see no reason to bash Vaselineeeeeeee for proposing this. The answer to "Based on what?" is, therefore, "based on established Wikipedia precedent for a closely related issue that may be applicable here". Please assume good faith and when you're saying "I don't mean to sound rude", consider whether you're just about to be, and whether it's warranted. LjL (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


I think a consistent use of he/his is appropriate but both he/they should be specified when explicitly discussing pronouns. If WP:Reliable sources do otherwise, we can follow suit. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This is one example of why. It can be jarring in some cases when a role with a female name is introduced even though it says "he" : "In the same year, he was cast in the television series Trailer Park Boys in the recurring role of Treena Lahey, which he played for 5 episodes." Caitlyn Jenner's page seems like it tries to use the last name in almost all cases when they were Bruce to avoid such an instance. I think we should try to do the same here. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
People who use he/him have been playing characters who use she/her, and vice versa, in acting roles for literally thousands of years. If we can get it right for Tyler Perry's Medea, for Akihiro Miwa, for Shakespeare, and for kabuki theater, it can work here. Revolving Bugbear 19:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Well said. I think the principle of least astonishment is important, but this is not at all a context where it outweighs the other factors. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

People who use multiple sets of pronouns do so in different ways. Some people want others to use them interchangeably; some do not, and some don't have a preference either way. So far, Elliot has not specified whether or not they use their pronouns interchangeably. 21:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Meganswikitime (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Meganswikitime

I would recommend using GLAAD's guidelines for articles that mention Elliot. 21:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Meganswikitime (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Meganswikitime

"the film, his character is a young woman who abducts a baby and tries to pass it on as his own."

That 'on as his own' at the end should be 'off as her own' as the pronoun refers to the character and not the actor. Omnitographer (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns such as he and him can be applied to all male persons, and pronouns such as they and them can apply to any person at all. It is up to us as the editors to choose when, for the purposes of writing, it is appropriate to use one rather than the other, or to not use any at all. Either male or neutral pronouns can be used to describe him in the past, present or future. Neutral pronouns have the advantage of avoiding potentially confusing language, such as saying that "he" won an award titled "best actress", but usually both can be used interchangeably. It's important to note that personal pronouns don't belong to people, they are tools that we use to convey meaning. We've done this with Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning, and we are more than capable of handling this again. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

For the time being, I believe we should err on the side of caution and use only they/them/their/themself/ves pronouns to avoid confusion, at least until Elliot Page provides further clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.190.166.40 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should avoid excessive use of pronouns. The lede can simply be:
Elliot Page[1] (born Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page; February 21, 1987)[2][3] is a Canadian actor and producer, who first became known for a role in the film and series Pit Pony (1997–2000) that won a Young Artist Award, and for recurring roles in Trailer Park Boys (2002) and ReGenesis (2004). Page also received recognition for a role in the film Hard Candy (2005), and won the Austin Film Critics Association's Award for Best Actress.
The title role in Jason Reitman's film Juno (2007) was Page's cinematic breakthrough which earned nominations for an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award, a Critics' Choice Awards, a Golden Globe Award, and a Screen Actors Guild Award. Roles in The Tracey Fragments (2007), Whip It (2009), Super (2010), Inception (2010), and Tallulah (2016) also earned praise. Page has also portrayed Kitty Pryde in two X-Men films (2006, 2014), produced and stared in the film Freeheld (2015), and made a directorial debut with the documentary There's Something in the Water (2019). Since 2019, Page has portrayed Vanya Hargreeves in the Netflix series The Umbrella Academy.
Page publicly came out as gay in February 2014 when presenting as a woman, and subsequently as transgender[1][4] in December 2020, announcing their new name as Elliot Page.[1]

According to cbs elliot's pronouns are he/they. Why not use both. "Elliot announced he/they wants to be. . ." Esthermdee (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not correct usage and it is othering. "He/they", unless the speaker says otherwise, means that they will accept either he or they, not to use both sandwiched together. Either he or they is correct until Page says otherwise. Revolving Bugbear 19:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of they in the singular is a very old and sensible solution to get around gendering. However, their is a fly in the ointment, where an even discriminated group has a reasonable claim on the pronoun, that being communities of people who all inhabit a single body i.e. multiple personalities or Disassociated Identities (both are medicalized as "psychiatric disorder"). Given the discrimination shown to people with MP/DI it is rare that people will talk about it, especially if your the individual has Gender Dysphoria as it can be used as tool to refuse surgical treatment of collectives body. So it is likely that Elliot is using They in the singular, but I thought it was important to point out the alternative explanation X-mass (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? "They" is plural. If she wants be considered a dude now, then the pronoun would be "he". And, X-mass, it's "there is a fly [...], not "their". Does grammar mean nothing anymore? 97.123.105.105 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe they meant "they" with a singular antecedent, but a plural verb, which is the well established use of the word. See singular they for more info. Perryprog (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you but we are not talking about an unknown person, as in "somebody left their umbrella". The "singular they" doesn't apply here.97.123.105.105 (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
That's my mistake, I should've linked to the relevant section. Singular they § Use for specific, known people, including non-binary people is what I was referring to specifically, with the section above also being of mild relevance (use with a generic noun, e.g., "child"). Perryprog (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

remove his deadname

. Lemosaurchestra (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In reddit, there is a controversy about Elliot Page's name in the German version of Wikipedia. https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/k56nls/the_name_of_elliot_page_on_german_wikipedia/ Dale Husband (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No, as per WP:DEADNAME we list trans people's birth names if they were notable under it. — Czello 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see MOS:DEADNAME. The standard practice on Wikipedia is to retain deadnames in articles in cases where the BLP subject initially achieved Notability while using their deadname (exclusively or by preference). So there doesn't seem to be a policy-based reason to remove the deadname in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to move the deadname to a footnote at least? That keeps references to their work under the former, notable name, but does not put it front and center in the entry. Wwshreve (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wwshreve: seems pretty confusing to readers; he was very, very notable under it. policy is not to hide it; see Chelsea Manning Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) .... DemonDays64 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
But all biographical articles follow this structure: name, date of birth, name at birth, lead. BeŻet (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia. Our duty isn't to minimise details like this, but to present facts: and it's very notable that he was known under the name Ellen very prominently for years. — Czello 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
While I understand the urge to move or minimize it, as generally for articles on living people we try to preserve privacy and avoid harm, in this case doing so would impede the encyclopedic function of this article. Since he was notable under his previous name and many people may still know him under his previous name (especially right now when he's been out for less than a day), we should note that the two names refer(red) to the same person in the lede. It's important to note that WP policy does not demand this for all trans people, as some other editors here have suggested. Per MOS:DEADNAME, it is only when trans people are notable under their deadname that we include it, and from there it is up to editorial discretion where in the article to include it. In this case, I think that because the announcement was so recent and because so much of his work was publicized under his deadname, for now it makes sense to include it in the lede. SreySros (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
When discussing Page in almost any context outside an encyclopedia, using his deadname would be inappropriate, but this is a special case. WP:SURPRISE is relevant here. He only changed his name a few hours ago; plenty of people who've seen people talking about Elliot Page on Twitter haven't even realized yet that they know who he is! It's our job to immediately communicate that he is, in fact, a very well known actor who got famous under another name in the most sensitive and careful way possible, and the current format certainly seems to be the best solution to that quandary. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, a footer move wouldn't be appropriate. I think the balance point should be including it in the "born as" section on the right, and a "born as" parenthetical statement at the start of the initial text of the article, and then perhaps one mention at at the start of early life. This should provide readers with a clear initial indication that this is the person formerly know by that name and that it has changed. Then throughout the rest of the article, it should be easy (outside of direct quotes) to use their new name, Elliot, to be respectful. At that point we will have cleared up any confusion and removed the surprise factor and served the function of an encyclopedia. What are other folks's thoughts on this? 176.251.174.199 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying remove the deadname entirely. You're right, the name is notable -- put "credited as" in the filmography so people looking for the person who played the lead character on Juno (or any of his other roles) can find him. IMDB got this right. There is no need, however, to put it front and center in the VERY FIRST LINE, as that is extremely disrespectful to him at best. The issue here is clearly that MOS:DEADNAME needs to be fixed, moreso than arguing for a change for Elliot as an individuall. I just haven't been around on wikipedia in so long that i wouldn't even know who to talk to about starting down that road. 50.84.54.202 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Also note MOS:DEADNAME says "the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name" which is arguable on one hand (putting it right there at the top is extremely disrespectful I agree), but on the other hand also doesn't say "definitely has to be exactly there" if we have found a better place in e.g. the career / personal life sections, filmography as "quoted as" or the infobox. "should only" means just that, not that we're forced to do exactly that thing it tells us to only do in some cases. 46.92.178.95 (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to simply state in the career section that he was known by that name and became famous under it since that's pretty much the only reason why it is encyclopedic to mention it according to what I have read here. No one is "born as" people are given a name a little bit after birth by another person and this is to be taken into account, it is perfectly feasible to clarify a name change without being so specific considering many cisgender artists and people in general for many reasons have had a name change, too, for which the reason is not always explained. Similarly, I don't see the point in stating explicitly what gender a person was assigned at birth since we don't do this for cisgender people to clarify that they are not transgender. I don't see the interest in mentioning that as it is not, in itself, directly and/or exclusively the cause for the name change (as cisgender people change their names, and many transgender people, don't). unsigned comment added by Raton5432 (talk 23:35, 1 December 2020‎

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Removing a verifiable fact, what their past name was, is censorship. Even censorship for a noble cause is still censorship. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant here, MOS:DEADNAME is the Wikipedia's simple balance between respecting an Individuals Right to Privacy and when their Notability started. In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their the birth name is included briefly in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant if and only if the information is not deleted. I am not a deletionist. Wikipedia should be welcoming. These are behaviors. Elliot Page has millions of fans reconnecting. Half of us won't get it until we see roles. Half of us won't get it until we see pictures. And the least relevant bit of data, the deadname, put in lede to induce sympathetic dysphoria? Implications: 'If Wikipedia ever has an article about me, I will be deadnamed in the lede.' 'If Elliot Page visits Wikipedia they have to both be objective and take a kick in the psyche.' Be better. We can do better. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED applies. It is a verified, and notable fact noted by a wide array of reliable sources. Censorship for laudible or noble goals is still censorship. In this case, burying past information to protect someone's feelings. If someone has some kind of psychological episode by reading their own Wikipedia page then they need serious psychological assistance which is far beyond the scope of what Wikipedia aims for. Censoring Wikipedia based on how people might react is a slippery slope that we should not go down. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for my hasty position. Further research on my part is required. I now have scientific objections I cannot yet reconcile to make an informed decision about WP:DEADNAME and even WP:NOTCENSORED (despite a long history here of being antideletionist) much less Elliot Page. I would like to state a personal bias that I believe that science is clear that gender dysphoria is real and significant. I believe as an ideal that all people own their own bodies and minds. I believe differences in expression are glorious. I do not know the full causes of gender dysphoria. I do not know the full epidemiology of gender dysphoria. I would encourage a hearty and urgent debate as to Wikipedia's responsible role in all of these subjects for all readers due to our reach and the reach of Elliot Page. Personal pronouns are the smallest possible units of information which describe identities. This absolutely qualifies as the meme war which Terence McKenna described. Without the science I need, I cannot be sure which side is right. That's way up the food chain from this article. Thank you Harizotoh9 for your opinions. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Just want to add that I would fully support removing any and all deadnames from articles (as a trans woman myself I’m glad I’m unlikely to ever become notable for anything so this kinda stuff won’t happen to me), but I feel that it is exceedingly unlikely this will ever happen and trying to convince Wikipedia of such a policy change is a pretty futile battle. --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If we can't get Wendy Carlos's deadname, which hasn't been relevant in nearly half a century, removed from being bolded in the lead... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 09:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Previous works

People are going around changing "Ellen" to "Elliot" on Page's previous works as a woman. Since those works have since ended, and that Page went by Ellen at that time, it doesn't make sense to me to change it to the current Elliot. I have reverted several of these. This seems to be like not changing the previous albums of "Lady Antebellum" to "Lady A" when the were created using Lady Antebellum. Anyone who does work on transgender bios know the practice for this? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to change the name to Elliot as this is his current name. BeŻet (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
On what basis given she appeared as "Ellen" at that specific moment in time? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Just because that was the name he went by at that point, does not mean that it is his name now. It is impolite to say the least to deadname trans people unless they specifically agree to it. Amekyras (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Impolite? Unless they specifically agree to it? That is surely completely irrelevant, this is an encyclopaedic wiki... —Jonny Nixon (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Politeness is encyclopaedic. Pejorative or insulting language has no place on Wikipedia see MOS:GENDERID. ScienceDawns (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It is neither pejorative nor insulting - just accurate - to refer to someone using the name they were universally known by at the time they did what made them notable. The subject of the article's feelings about their change of name should not enter into it. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
You are entitled to your own opinion. But deadnaming is considered pejorative and/or insulting to all who are trans and trans inclusive. Which is why Wikipedia has MOS:DEADNAME. The proper way of writing about name changes regardless of reason (marriage, adoption, gender identity, etc.) is to use the current name. And if the person was notable under their deadname, as is the case here, to include the original name once in the lead or first mention. For example "The cast includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Marion Cotillard, Eliot Page (then Ellen Page), Tom Hardy, etc" and use Eliot Page in the rest of the article. ScienceDawns (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
If that applies regardless of reason, would you support changing the article on Cat Stevens to refer to him as "Yusuf Islam" throughout, even retrospectively? At the moment that article takes quite a sensible approach, talking about "Georgiou" for his childhood (Steven Georgiou is his birth name), "Stevens" during the height of his musical career, and "Islam" since 1978, with wording throughout that makes clear why the reference is changing without being unecessarily clunky. What I detect in this debate, not necessarily from you but from some of those commenting, is the claim that the trans angle makes articles like this one a special case, to be treated differently to the likes of Cat Stevens or other famous people who have changed their names mid-career. In the trans case the earlier name has a kind of taboo placed on it, comparable to the custom of some Aboriginal Australians who avoid using personal names to refer to people after their death. I suggest instead that we should refer to Ellen/Elliot Page like we refer to Steven Georgiu/Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, using the name that appears in contemporaneous reliable sources at the appropriate stages of each person's career. Actually it sounds like we agree on the need for consistency between trans and non-trans name changes, but differ on the question of retrospective application of newly announced names, whether for trans people or not. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This may not be a blanket policy "regardless of reason" - MOS:CHANGEDNAME distinguishes between GENDERID-related name changes and all other name changes, and treats them differently. Please understand that this guideline represents WP consensus after extensive discussion, which quite overrides the local consensus of your feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at Caitlyn Jenner as an example and seems that many for Jenner's Olympic performances as Bruce on other wikis is listed as Bruce. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think is a trans-specific issue. When people marry and change their last name, you don't refer to them by their maiden name even when discussing past work. BeŻet (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
When you reference them on that specific work when they had their maiden name, yes you do... Anyway, this has nothing to do with politeness, but rather Wikipedia standard and we don't go off of WP:OR. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia standard is set in MOS:GENDERID: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). I'm not sure why you're discussing WP:OR, which doesn't seem to be relevant here. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for linking that. In "Referring to the person in other articles" it says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. This may be the case to keep "Ellen" in her their (trying to be careful, seriosuly lol) previous works given it is not relevant to those works to change the name. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Vaseline - I've done a lot of trans bio edit work and can confirm that Wikipedia's policy is to always use the most recent name a person has gone by for all mentions of that person (except in "Born" part of summary and infobox). Editors who are updating his name to Elliot across articles are doing the right thing. I think Lady A is different because it is a group name not a person's name. Check out MOS:GENDERID and all the discussion that went on when writing those guidelines if you want to see more about the rationale behind that policy. 李艾连 (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
What's the case for Caitlyn Jenner then having "Bruce" in their past Olympic works? At least they give a note in some cases. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry - just read Newimpartial's comment and realized I was confusing the Bio MOS with the GenderID MOS. Newimpartial is correct that the there's not set policy here. The prevailing rule is avoid edit warring and to let other user's edits be unless there is a good reason to change them. Use of Elliot as his name throughout his filmography is appropriate and there's no reason to change it back.李艾连 (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Surely pairing his deadname with his correct pronouns would be more jarring (and surprising) than simply using his current name, and I can't see what benefit it adds. We should only use a deadname with a compelling encyclopedic reason, and there is none there. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Strong agree. 李艾连 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not going to the related pages myself, but would point out that in film articles, there could be a case for choosing "they" rather than "he" among the preferred pronouns if the DEADNAME is mentioned. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@李艾连: Maybe we're arguing different things. I brought this here as "previous works" but was talking more generally on pages in which Page is mentioned, such as films and tv show articles and such. I brought it here because I thought it would make more sense than bringing it up at dozens of individual articles. At those pages, I think we should keep "Ellen" due to the fact that they were credited as such at the time of the making of the work. What we do here is another matter. Looking at Jenner's page, their mentions with regards to their previous work seems to try and use their last name wherever they can, something that I'd also be for here. Here, something that is jarring is where we refer to them as "he" followed by the role they played, which has a female name. That is where I think we should try and use Page's last name where we can. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Related articles seems like a difficult one. As far as pronouns go, if mentioning the deadname it makes sense to use he, it avoids misgendering while preventing a potentially awkward and WP:SURPRISE situation. I think that definitely seems sensible. As far as referring to him in other articles goes I see the argument in both directions.
* For keeping the old name: If someone watches and old film they will see deadname in the credits, likewise old articles on websites will likely retain that, as will old projects they've been in potentially. This means searching for it will occur with an expectation of that name in some cases. Minimizing surprise would thus argue deadname retention.
* Obviously, being respectful would strongly suggest going and changing the name.
I definitely can agree going on some giant crusade is not a good idea, however the best proposal I can think of would be "Elliot (né Ellen) Page" in mentions of the name in pages on old works? Importantly it should be just né not neé if so, as the former is the masculine form? That's just a possible thought though given we lack clear guidance on how to handle. 176.251.174.199 (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Some people are confusing policy with practice. While there is a policy to use self-declared pronouns for all references to a person across WP, according to MOS:GENDERID, there is not similar guidance about the names of notable persons. It will take some future RfC (presumably, at MOS:DEADNAME) to turn the varied current practices into policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Vaseline, your quote is from the section on "Referring to the person in other articles". That's an issue to hash out on e.g. the Talk:Juno (film) page, where the question would be whether it's possible to use the correct name without adding a long explanatory tangent (I would argue "absolutely yes", for the record), but it's not relevant to this article. However, I must repeat that it really doesn't seem like you're arguing these issues from a place of understanding, either of trans issues or of Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of trans people, and I would like to courteously suggest that maybe you sit that argument out and let editors with more experience of these situations handle it. 2601:14D:4180:F5A0:CD56:C843:5B95:949B (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm pinging User:Lugnuts and User:Iamnoahflores Who I've seen at some pages involving Page on her their (one slipped (: ). previous works. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Vaseline, please also note that you are consistently using the wrong pronouns for Elliot in this talk page. He uses he or they pronouns. Thank you. 李艾连 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@李艾连: This is nothing but a personal attack because I've been using "they" or "their" the whole time..... Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
"Who I've seen at some pages involving Page on her previous works" - you literally just wrote this I don't know what to tell you. 李艾连 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, just fixed that, not that it matters one iota to the discussion :) Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I don't know what the wiki-guide/policy is on past names, etc, but I know of a similar precedent with The Matrix and the the Wachowskis. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it was actually The Matrix page where I got the idea of just adding a footnote on the infobox. If the name is not on an/the infobox, I put the note in a different appropriate place. I just find it a lot simpler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnoahflores (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • He would've been known as "Ellen Page" at the time of filming and releasing so therefore IMHO previous name should remain for previous work, new name should be used for now/future films. –Davey2010Talk 19:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • That would be what's known on WP as a policy-ignorant contribution to the discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • In that case the policy is clearly counter-intuitive and needs revisiting. "Elliot Page" was not a name that anyone knew until a matter of hours ago, and we are misleading readers by talking about films involving Ellen Page as if they were starred in by a male actor with the name Elliot. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There was a discussion about previous film credits for transgender individuals last year regarding the Wachowskis: Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2#Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis. I think it would be beneficial if someone started a similar RfC either here regarding Page or at MOS:DEADNAME for a more general policy to avoid the back and forth on all the individual pages. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This has been brought up before. All historical documents should reflect historical data. We don't change things after the fact. Going forward, Elliot Page will be Elliot Page, but unless Elliot gets all prior films they have worked on to change said credit to "Elliot Page", they will be "Ellen Page" for those films. THat isn't a disrespect to Elliot. It's the same reason the Caitlyn Jenner is not listed as an Olympic medalist, but Bruce Jenner is listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This is really simple - MOS:DEADNAME says In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the birth name with either "born" or "formerly":. This relates to articles on the subject, but we can clearly take inspiration from it. At the absolute most, we should say Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page). Best, Darren-M talk 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Want to point out that while that is accurate to what DEADNAME says, it is in reference to this page. it is not about credits on other pages, which is what I thought this discussion was about. That's why we don't respell names that are misspelled, but that's how they were credited in that film/tv show/etc. The credit that exists for any of his works prior to transition would remain as "Ellen Page" on those pages alone. This page will say "Elliot Page", even when referencing those works.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Bignole, Your first point is a reiteration of a point that I had already stated- that DEADNAME does not apply on pages which are not articles about the subject. My argument was that notwithstanding the lack of formal application, we should take a steer from it when writing about the subject in other articles. Best, Darren-M talk 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (Moved from Talk:Smart_People § Recent_Reverts_Regarding_Deadnaming, partially redundant) Looking at the manual of style, MOS:DEADNAME seems pretty clear cut here—as far as I can tell, there's no need to reference the actors' former names except possibly on their first mention (e.g., John Smith (formerly Jane Doe) for the first occurrence per article). Perryprog (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • That isn't what MOS:DEADNAME says, though, nor is it a standardized practice. The last RfC on this topic only in 2020 established a site-wide norm not no mention non-notable deadnames. Deciding in what contexts a deadname can (or should) be used, when the person was notable with that name at the time, is going to require a new RfC, I'm afraid. Editors simply do not agree - some think the Caitlyn Jenner solution is a model, and others see it as an aberration, to pick an example not at random. Newimpartial (talk)

References

  1. ^ Credited as The Wachowski Brothers.

Proposal for RfC

I just created the RfC here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works. I have never done an RfC before, so please feel free to fix it or create a new one if I did something wrong. Seemed like it would be beneficial to get this going so that people have a central location to post their thoughts and opinions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and don't have any improvements to suggest at this time. If that's your first RfC, I'll have you know it's probably the best-crafted first RfC I've ever seen. :) Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I largely copied and pasted from previous RfCs so it was a community effort to be sure. I also only put notices on a few articles' talk pages, but it looks like there is going to be plenty of discussion already. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

lock article

add somewhat of a protection to the article I can sense trolls about to make their way in GreenPeace460 (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, can definitely feel immediate edit wars incoming Nekomancerjade (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 Already done @Greenpeace460 and Nekomancerjade: it's semi-protected. maybe it should be stricter, idk; see WP:RPP. DemonDays64 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected for a while (in indef), but we don't protect pages preemptively. The edits seem to be fine and issues can currently be dealt with quickly, if this becomes a problem we can go to RFPP. QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Gay?

It says in the article: "On February 14, 2014, Page came out as gay during a speech at the Human Rights Campaign's "Time to Thrive" conference in Las Vegas." (Later married a women)

And now Page is a man. So if he likes women and now he is a man he is no longer gay? So he is straight? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of gender, Page still came out as gay during that speech, so that sentence is correct in my opinion. If a sentence said, "Page is gay," we should adjust that, though as far as I know Page has not specified whether, as a man, he is bisexual, pansexual, straight, or something else. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, Elliot has not at this point publically identified as a man. He has identified as nonbinary, trans, and queer, and uses he/him and they/them pronouns. I'm sure more will be revealed with time. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair point. In either case, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it will be best to let the article subject make their preferred language clear in time. I don't think that sentence is currently too problematic because it is referenced to a particular time when Page did come out as gay and does not use language that necessarily means that information still applies accurately today. If Page has made statements disavowing that statement or in some other way expressing disapproval of using "gay" to refer to that period of his life, then I think it would be more appropriate to consider removing or modifying it. For example, we could add something like "On February 14, 2014, before Page came out as trans/non-binary [or most appropriate term for him]..." if needed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If they're not identifying as a man, what does "trans" refer to? 69.113.166.178 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It would refer to not identifying with their assigned sex at birth. You can be trans and gender-queer / non-binary. Reference here for additional relevant terms- https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender Which we can also see there, "trans" would be associated with their gender identity, but does not specifically mean that they now feel like that also demands a shift in how they feel about their sexual orientation (per the discussion here about gay / lesbian as the appropriate term). Nawendana (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
"Gay" is now wrong, when using "he". It should say "he came out as a gay woman" or "as a lesbian" instead. That would conform to the identity status and what is meant by that homosexuality statement at the time it was made and what it meant ot be outed at that point in time. Post-factual revisionism icorrectly revises facts to become not related to facts in history, with facts not in evidence. It is a basic violation of WP:V, since it is not verifiable that "he came out as a gay man" as the text now implies it to be. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It is also important to mention that Page didn't come out as a trans man, but simply as trans, and goes by he/they pronouns. At this point it's not correct to refer to him as a man, until and unless he states otherwise. Sennowa (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that maybe with time he will come out & be able to further answer these questions, so we can update the wikipedia page accordingly! I think at this point in time we don’t need to mention a definite sexual identity, but can mention their partner as “Elliot Page’s wife, Emma Portner”. Since Elliot is non-binary/transgender I don’t think its fair for us to label him as gay/bisexual at this point in time maybe a label like “queer” would be appropriate? or simply leaving it as stating that elliot has a wife! 234rly (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

234rly, in his Instagram post he identified himself as being queer. In terms of current sexual orientation, I believe that's what we should refer to. Perryprog (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
If in 2014 Ellen Page came out as "gay" when she was a woman, doesn't that mean she came out as "lesbian"? Isn't that the logical term? LGBT means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. So Gay in LGBT is "gay male" and Lesbian is "gay female". Or are we saying what she feels in 2020 is what she actually felt in 2014 when she made the announcement? Or are we writing her/his/their history when even he/she/them was a she and she taught she was a she and she came "out" and I am filling the blanks here.... a lesbian... in 2014. werldwayd (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As you basically said, "gay" is a fairly generic term that can refer to anyone - lots of lesbians call themselves gay as do many bisexual people. I think we should probably say that Page came out as gay in 2014 and identifies as queer or something along those lines. Gbear605 (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
When lesbians self-identify as "gay" it's clear enough what's meant. In this case, however, having "outed him as gay" in the article suggests without sufficient evidence subject is attracted to men. Phrasing should be changed to either came out as lesbian or came out as queer. "Gay" was fine at the time because the subject was then presented to the reader as female but that's no longer the case.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
"Came out as gay" is what happened in 2014 and is fine, but "outed him as gay" doesn't work and needs to be rewritten, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Assigned female at birth

Hi I'm not a good editor or anything but I would like to point out as a trans person that the follow line: "He was brought up as a female from birth, and went by his birth name of Ellen until December 2020" should be phrased as "He was assigned female at birth, and went by his birth name of Ellen until December 2020"

"assigned female/male at birth" needs to be consistent throughout this article and throughout wikipedia. If that policy already exists then it needs to be followed. Lin.ll (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems incorrect. It does not concern gender reassignment surgery at birth, which happened during the era of his birth, and to my eye, is what is currently implied by the statement. It should use a different terminology. Like at birth, he was medically determined to have biologically female anatomy and legally was determined to be female. Or somesuch. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The relevant style guidance recommends "assigned female at birth" and "assigned male at birth" for all trans people. We should follow the best practices identified in the relevant guides. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with Lin.ll. Assigned female at birth is better than "brought up as female". --Zippy (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
"Assigned female at birth" suggests some arbitrary coin flip. Without a reliable source that states that doctors or parents or someone conspired to "assign" this person as female contrary to the evidence of their eyes, using that phrase would give the unwarranted impression that something other than the usual "it's a girl!" announcement happened. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
If we want to be consistent with other articles about trans people who were notable before their transition, I don't think we need to mention that he was assigned female at birth. In Caitlyn Jenner's Early Life section, it doesn't mention gender at all. It just says that she was known as Bruce Jenner until June 2015. I feel the simplest thing would be to do the same thing here. Mention Elliot's birth name and how long he was known by that name, and then move on. By leaving it out we can also avoid semantic disputes about pre-op vs. post-op gender assignment, physiological gender assignment, etc that are happening in the edits right now. His transition/gender assignment aren't important to his early life so it's simpler to wait until the personal life section to mention it. TJScalzo (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
TJScalzo, this seems like the best choice in my opinion. If we wanted to be very precise with our language, stating "Elliot was designated female on his birth certificate" would be—from what I understand—the most correct choice. Perryprog (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Perryprog: Yeah I feel like the best way to avoid the edit warring that this sentence has seen is to just remove the phrase entirely. This kind of sentence (and its implications on society's view of gender) is controversial. It's fine to leave it out in the Early Life section where it's not essential to mention it, but it remains to be seen if there will be discord about phrasing in the personal life section. TJScalzo (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The fact remains that multiple authorities on style recommend the "assigned at birth" language for Trans people. The fact that certain editors DONTLIKEIT isn't really a reason to ignore the best guidance available. Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course. I don't disagree with that at all. I think "assigned female at birth" is absolutely the correct phrase to use in a case where we need to refer to Elliot before his transition. In the long term, I believe that's the phrasing that should and will persist. But since the announcement was just posted, this article is seeing higher than normal traffic. People who are looking to be contrarians will object to anything they don't think makes sense. My belief is that minimizing controversial phrasing where it isn't necessary for now allows those people to pass by without causing unnecessary conflict. TJScalzo (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
digression - this article Talk page isn't Trans 101

Except for the fact that, literally no one is "assigned" a gender at any point, birth or otherwise. They aren't assigned a sex either. One is psychological, the other biological. Doctors and parents have no say in either. The whole premise is nonsense. And you're already presuming Page's lifelong gender based on 5 minute old news and what, a single statement? You say it's policy to do this for all transgender, what about people's whose gender identity develop with age? You're completely ignoring genderfluidity by presuming anyone whose gender is different from their sex that there was some great wrong their entire life starting with a conspiracy by doctors to wrongly "assign" them a gender. Page could have been gender feminine until 20 minutes ago. You don't even know, and you're making proclamations retroactively about his birth. J1DW (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"And you're already presuming Page's lifelong gender based on 5 minute old news and what, a single statement?" It's accurate 5 minute old news, so yes.
"You're completely ignoring genderfluidity" If he comes out as genderfluid than we can update the article as such.
"presuming anyone whose gender is different from their sex that there was some great wrong their entire life" No one's necessarily claiming that, and he himself has stated that he views him being male as having been his "authentic" self. Again, if he comes out as genderfluid than we can change that.
"some great wrong their entire life starting with a conspiracy by doctors to wrongly "assign" them a gender." No one's claiming that the doctors at his birth were purposely doing something wrong. No one's claiming that there was a conspiracy to assign him the wrong gender.
"Page could have been gender feminine until 20 minutes ago." And if he confirms that then we can update the article to reflect that.
"you're making proclamations retroactively about his birth" No, he is the one making implicit "proclamations" about his birth when he states that the sex assigned to him at birth does not match his current gender identity. Not that hard. Stavd3 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, as far as I can tell, Elliot hasn't used the term "male" in relation to his "authentic self", just "trans" (and queer). But the day is young. Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that "assigned male/female" is a rather terrible way of phrasing this and we don't have any reasons to use this in particular. If we can't agree on how to mention that Page was considered female for her early life, then we are better not explicitly mentioning that at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You don't accept GLAAD as an authority, either? I'm guessing you may have issues with authority, then. :p Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
GLAAD does not endorse the phrase in their media guide. They use words like assign to discuss topics related to transgender people. GLAAD is also not a dictionary or writing style guide, and does not purport to be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I'm confused. GLAAD uses the phrase "assigned at birth" when discussing gender and anatomical sex multiple times throughout the page that you linked. Am I missing something? That feels like an endorsement of the phrase to me. TJScalzo (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your question. To expand on what I said previously, GLAAD uses the phrase to describe what transgender means. They do not endorse using this to describe an individual. That could be an endorsement for articles like Transgender, but not appropriate for a biographical article. Either way this is not a writing style guide, it's just a glossary of terms, in which "assigned" is not one of them. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
actual media style guides say "DO use affirming and inclusive language (for example: sex assigned at birth, gender identity)". It isn't really a FRINGE recommendation. Newimpartial (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The language we use reflects the nature of the encyclopaedia. Sometimes it's appropriate to talk about sex assignment, and other times not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I respectfully disagree. You're basically asserting that the phrase "assigned at birth" is an acceptable way of describing a theoretical transgender person, but not a real transgender person. Actual trans people use that phrase to describe the gender that they were assigned at birth. You're pushing back against a phrase that is widely accepted by the trans community as a whole, not just GLAAD. It doesn't matter if it's in a writing style guide or not. It's simply the most accurate way of describing that facet of someone's life. Whether you believe it or not, gender is a social construct. (Take a look at this article for a more in-depth explanation of the difference between sex and gender.) Everyone is assigned a gender when they are born based on their anatomy. Using the phrase "assigned female at birth" recognizes that that is how Page was described when he was born and now he identifies differently. I don't see why "assigned female at birth" has to be relegated to use only in theory when it also accurately describes real people like Page. TJScalzo (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You're basically asserting that the phrase "assigned at birth" is an acceptable way of describing a theoretical transgender person, but not a real transgender person. No, I am not at all asserting this. It is a common way of explaining in part what transgender means, but not describing a person in a factual and encyclopaedic way. Newborns are not assigned a gender at birth. As a social construct, it is assigned by factors such as community pressures and one's own feelings. What typically happens at birth is that an infant's sex is determined, not a gender being assigned. There is no reason to mention Page's sex or gender at birth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps unfortunately, the reliable sources on the subject do not agree with you, so we are constrained by policy to ignore your argument. Newimpartial (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The "assigned at birth" is also used for intersex individuals, who were surgically altered at birth to a specific anatomical gender, so it is rather implying that there was a surgical assignment at birth, that has happened throughout the years, as a standard practice at some hospitals. -- 65.92.246.246 (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In the 21st century, "assigned at birth" language is used far more frequently to refer to trans than intersex people, and is recommended by all competent authorities in the field. Please see sex assignment. Newimpartial (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion seems fruitless now that neither line appears in the article. If there is call for either wording in future, I think "assigned female at birth" would be the preferred choice, per Newimpartial's reasoning above. Awoma (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

“Assigned [gender] at birth” is the only phrasing I’ve ever heard being seriously used. I’m surpised there’s debate on this. --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Change Ellen Page to Elliot Page! Elliot uses he/they pronouns. He just came out as trans. 46.140.3.10 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been changed already. Coretteket (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Website in Infobox?

I recently updated the link to Page's personal website so that it pointed to the live website rather than an archive on the Wayback Machine. Someone updated it so it used the URL template. Then about 15 minutes later @Hereistheo removed the website line from the infobox entirely. Is there any particular reason Page's website shouldn't be included? I understand that his website's domain name still uses his deadname, but it is his current website. It doesn't seem right to me that his website be omitted from the infobox because the domain hasn't been updated to match his preferred name. Is there a policy or general consensus that states the website should be removed since it's technically outdated? TJScalzo (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I support including the live website in the infobox. That's what "website =" exists for. If Page changes their website to a different URL, we should update the URL, but as it stands, that's still Elliot Page's website even if it's at the https://ellen.page URL. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd weakly suggest using the live website for now. However, [elliot.page] was registered yesterday, before Page announced his new name, so I suspect it will be updated before too long and this will cease to be an issue. Gbear605 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Jmill1806 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Note: Current discussion is in the #Finding a New Photo subsection. Levivich harass/hound 18:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Photo switched to today

Looking at the page history, the infobox photo was, until today, File:Elliot Page, 2010 (cropped).jpg, when it was changed by CarterLennon to File:Elliot Page 2015.jpg. I presume this was done to use a less feminine photo, and if we had equal-quality options available, I think we'd clearly want to go with the less feminine one. Unfortunately, the new image is really low-quality: it's very out-of-focus, the flash makes the lighting unnatural, there's red eye, etc. Do we have any better options available, and if not, how should we weigh severe quality concerns vs. better aligning with his recent announcement about his identity? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I think aligning to gender identity is more important than quality - though I have to admit I don't think the issues are that bad. It doesn't look obviously out of focus and I had to look really hard to see the red-eye (to be honest, it still looks just like brown to me). Maybe I'm blind, but it probably works if we can't find a better one. Darren-M talk 21:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that this photo works as a suitable alternative except that it was uploaded without licensing information. If there's a way to determine that it's licensed under Creative Commons, then it could be used as a high quality photo that's less overtly feminine. TJScalzo (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@TJScalzo: File:Elliot Page.jpg is a copyvio of [1]. GreenComputer (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@GreenComputer: Ah, well there you go. I didn't know where the photo came from since it had just been uploaded today. TJScalzo (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Something ironic about Wikipedia editors deciding what the "correct" image of him is based on what you decide he should look like since announcing he was trans. It's not like one photo was taken under duress. They are both Page and you're literally conspiring to portray him in a certain way to match a gender norm that you're comfortable with. J1DW (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is more about the principle of least astonishment, and it would also be more accurate to show a more recent image, which are less "overtly feminine". El Millo (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not the gender norm we're most comfortable with, it's the gender norm he's most comfortable with. Stavd3 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't like WP trying to arbitrate which photo is most aligned with someone's identity. It should be about quality images and which one is a more common look for the person. As far as I know, the photo on the left is a normal look for him. Plenty of people who identify as trans and non-binary look like the left photo more than the right one. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look at Page's social media, the newer photos are much more like our newer image than the 2010 image that we had been using. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ssilvers, an additional wrinkle is that, to my understanding, we shouldn't use WP:Recentism as a factor when selecting a lead image (something I've seen before at Gaddafi and at a basketball player whose name I forget, although I'm not sure whether it's formally laid out at MOS:IMAGE or somewhere else). Since Page has presented as feminine for much of his career, I could see a case that it's valid to use the 2010 image, even if it's not how he presents currently. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: I orginally used Page's old pronouns in the above comment and have corrected myself. My apologies if anyone noticed and was offended; the error was just me taking a bit to update my mental model of Page's gender identity, not any sort of malice. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Without making any specific recommendations, I would suggest that MOS:GENDERID concerns should be understood as more urgent, in such cases, than quibbles about WP:RECENTISM. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but I do not think MOS:GENDERID is an argument for the left photo over the right photo. We do not know whether Page's gender identity is more aligned with the photo on the left or the right. Jmill1806 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the case has not been made for those concerns to take priority. The subject of this article is most well known for films acted in under the name Ellen, with a typically feminine appearance. If the prominence and notability of films starred in as Elliot one day eclipses those released to date then the feminine-looking photos would be relegated to a section on "early career" or something, but we are a long way from that point literally a few hours after the announcement of the name change. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think NeptNarwals' comment below, that Elliot hasn't looked like that (ultrafeminine) in years, is to the point, jmill1806. And there isn't any gender policing involved in saying so.
As far as Beorhtwulf's comments are concerned, I am not saying that GENDERID should be uber alles, just that it should be one consideration for a BLP subject. It's not like Elliot's career has gone over a cliff; something from the Umbrella Academy period ought to work well. There was a recent RfC at MOS:DEADNAME that was closed with don't be a dick, which might also be a relevant consideration here. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like we are agreed actually that questions of an individual's self-declared gender identity should be considerations when writing an article about them, and thank you for clarifying that you don't see GENDERID as a kind of trump card. It does appear to me looking at this talk page and some of the debate about policy in this area that some people unfortunately do take the view that anything relating to gender identity does indeed take precedence over other important considerations, such as least astonishment, reflecting reliable sources (which include old sources), and the need to avoid recentism. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The principle of least astonishment is an argument against the 2010 photo, not for it. If I was a random person going to this page, I'd be really surprised to see this super-old photo where he looks much more feminine than he does on social media, or in most of his film appearances, even those from that time period. 73.210.222.217 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you know, Beorhtwulf, that that is not what I meant. I am saying that GENDERID is not a trump card, but it does reflect community consensus on concerns that are relevant for BLP subjects (viz. do no harm), and which you seem at great pains to ignore. The need to avoid recentism is not an argument to use an image from 10 years ago, which doesn't correspond to the subject's core public image at any point in time, to make a POINT and produce quite unnecessary ASTONISHMENT, compared to, say, a photo from the subject's latest period of media attention. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you know, Beorhtwulf, that that is not what I meant. Yes, that's why I said "some people" and contrasted their apparent position to your more reasonable one. By the way, I'm not at great pains to ignore policy. In fact I haven't edited the article at all, and I'm discussing the policy rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist. I do question whether the policy is a reasonable one, which is why I've also engaged in the broader discussion at the RfC. Beorhtwulf (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The photo on the left is far higher quality. While the one on the right is more recent, it is substantially worse. I don't think the gender argument really applies here - it is not for us to decide how well Page's appearance matches expectations for his gender in photos. This is likely to be a bigger discussion, and I imagine we will find a better photo than both eventually. Per WP:BRD I'm going to revert to the old version until that discussion reaches a conclusion. Awoma (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment from a random, anonymous trans person: if this was a wikipedia article about me, I'd be *much*, much happier with a more recent (but lower-quality) photo than a decade-old (but higher-quality) picture. 73.210.222.217 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately this will be moot, as we'll be able to find a photo which is both high quality and recent. Awoma (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, I'm not sure I'd even characterize the older photo as "high quality." It has better lighting and focus, sure, but it doesn't look like the subject of the article. I think that's as least as important as a measure of "quality". 73.210.222.217 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how it doesn't look like the subject of the article? If you look at Page's instagram account you'll find many recent photographs in which he looks just like this. Of course, looking ahead, it is very likely that Page will begin presenting himself very differently and so it's clearly appropriate to find a high-quality photo matching whatever new presentation he goes for. Awoma (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I went through the last two years of pictures on that Instagram account, and I could not find any that look like the 2010 picture used here. None of them seem to have close to the same level of haircare or makeup, especially eye shadow, blush, and lipstick. They all look far more similar to the 2015 picture. Maybe you had already moved several years back on the Instagram page? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I find this surprising but definitely believe you. Clearly human perception differs by a lot! To my eye, every photo is immediately recognisable as the same person we depict, and the Stylist cover I would even say is identical to ours. Awoma (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
That may very well be true, but it's not something that should determine the editorial choices of an encyclopedia, which should place a priority on documenting subjects as they are known to the world, not as they might wish to be known. If there was an article about you and your most notable work was done ten years ago, a decade-old photo would be the most appropriate choice. Even more so if it was of higher quality than a recent one. Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you joking???? Elliot is currently starring in the third most popular show on Netflix. His coming-out tweet has over one million likes. He's still 'notable'. 73.210.222.217 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not disputing Page's current notability. What I am disputing is that notable work done since the announcement of the new name and pronouns eclipses that done under the name Ellen. Maybe it will one day, but it certainly doesn't yet! Beorhtwulf (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Even in the movies he's most famous for, his appearance isn't as ultrafeminine as in that 2010 photo. In fact, when he was doing a lot of red carpet appearances around the time of Juno and Inception, there was substantial commentary at the time about how uncomfortable he looked with that level of hair and makeup. 73.210.222.217 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in here; there's some serious whiplash involved with the 2010 photograph, as Page hasn't looked like that (ultrafeminine) in years. I second a YES to keeping the 2015 image until a better one is found. NeptNarwhals (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't think the newer picture is that noticeably different in quality for most people's screen size and computer and mobile. Considering the picture is 10 years old and Page hasn't look like that in a while, I don't think the quality is significant enough to make a difference. It does seem important to take people's feelings into account (such as not using mug shots), and does anyone genuinely believe she would prefer the older picture? I also support keeping the newer image until a higher quality one can be found. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The photo from 2010 is pretty unrepresentative of Page's current look.[2] I'd say go with the photo on the right. It's a little out of focus, and it looks like it comes from a random fan encounter in a bar or something, but it's not a total disaster. Plus, it's more recent and more representative. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using the relatively more feminine image of Page, as this is an appearance that is commonly associated with them, especially compared the lower quality image. Do we not have any other more recent images of Page? This will become less of an issue as time goes by and images of Page with a relatively masculine appearance become more numerous, as with Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning. For now the most ideal solution is to find an image that is both recent and high quality, which is neither of these two. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is it that we always go with recent photos of people anyway? Like the 2019 photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger with a gray beard, is that necessarily Arnold's most iconic look? The face I always remember thinking of Arnold is File:Terminator2poster.jpg in terms of maybe his most famous role and how you would picture his general appearance centuries later. WakandaQT (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Good question. I left a relevant invite on your talk. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think there is a clear case for using the most recent available image here under WP:DEADNAME. It is likely that Page will alter his appearance and presentation considerably, and wikipedia loses nothing by respecting that. Awoma (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
We should decide generally whether Wikipedia should err on the side of using a photo from someone's period of maximum notability or on the side of staying up to date as they age and change throughout life. There should not be any special exception carved out for trans people, any more than there should be for people whose appearance has changed for any other reason. If Page remains at least as notable for acting or anything else after this recent announcement then in time it will become most sensible to use a post-2020 photo (provided image quality is up to scratch). But as things stand, and as the announcement was made only very recently, almost the entirety of the career we are discussing in this article has coincided with Page having a more or less feminine appearance. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
That's a discussion for general Wikipedia policy, but for what it's worth, I agree with you. "Iconic" or "well-known" looks should be the aim of WP. In Schwarzenegger's case though, he has stayed in the spotlight has he has aged, so I think it's unclear. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Another interesting comparator would be Jimmy Carter. He has maintained a public profile many decades after his presidency ended, and now looks about like you'd expect a guy in his 90s to look, but our article on him uses a very old photo from the four brief years of his life when he was most notable. Meanwhile Joe Biden has also been notable and prominent since the 1970s, and we could lead with an image of him in his physical prime, but we sensibly go with a recent picture because his trajectory of notability and prominence has taken the opposite tack to Carter's. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I was really surprised when I saw that the photo had been changed back to the much more feminine one, and even more surprised to find arguments that the 2015 photo is lower quality. What? I genuinely cannot detect the focus and redeye problems that people mention. I guess it is... a more casual photo? Less like a professional photoshoot? But it is also not a decade out of a date nor a misrepresentation of what this person looks like, so I think it is clearly the most suitable image for the infobox. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 07:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the low-quality characteristics are precisely what is driving support for this image - things like the low focus and poor lighting make it impossible to make out Page's hair, for instance, rendering Page's gender more ambiguous. I don't think we have to settle for a low-quality image to do this though. We can update the previous high-quality image with a more recent high-quality image. Until we find a good replacement, we should WP:WAIT. Awoma (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to take the BOLD liberty to re-revert your reversion, Awoma. The tentative majority consensus that has been reached here is in favour of the 2015 photo. I understand your aversion, respecting WAIT, but I think DEADNAME, GENDERID, and community decision wins here. Cheers. NeptNarwhals (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Re-reverting is not WP:BOLD and risks edit wars. There is not yet a consensus around either image. Please engage with the discussion instead of doing this. Awoma (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Photo quality is important to the extent that the photo must clearly represent the subject. MOS:IMAGES defines "poor quality" as "dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on". This image is none of those things, and it better represents Page in 2020 than the older photo. My vote is for the newer photo. BenjaminChadwick (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I favour the 2010 image considering it is far higher quality than the 2015 image in addition to him generally being more notably within the period than the latter. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 11:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The 2015 image quality is fine. Stop being obstinate. An image that is 5 years more recent is much better. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The 2015 picture is a better representation of the person depicted. The 2015 picture should be the one in the infobox. Mateussf (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The 2015 picture is more recent as well as respectful to the subject of the photograph. The 2010 photograph is not only outdated, but a misrepresentation of Page, in my opinion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The 2015 picture is more recent, a more accurate representation, and more respectful of the article's subject. The photo quality is more than adequate for an infobox image. --Avenue (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The 2015 photo is more consistent with the sources for "Elliot Page".[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    For the same reasons I also support the alternative 2010 photo which I added below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Use neither photo. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Use 2015 photo for now, until a better one can be found. It's good enough. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The second photo is from five years before Page came out as a transgender man anyway, and only one year after they came out as a lesbian and thus obviously still thought of themselves as a woman. The debate here about the earlier photo seems to suggest people think men can't be feminine or have long hair. I agree that the earlier photo is of higher quality and for that reason IMO that one should be chosen, unless a better quality recent photo is presented. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    • To keep us in the same Page (TM), and unless something new happened today, Elliot has not come out as a transgender man: he came out as trans, possibly also nonbinary, and with he/they pronouns. Also Elliot did not come out as a lesbian in 2014: they came out as gay, per all available sources, and have self-designated as "queer" since 2017. None of this should be interpteted an argument against what you're saying about gender presentation, Abby; it has been a challenge at this Talk page just to keep track of the basic facts. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
      • So we're keeping track of facts, Page called themselves a lesbian in 2019. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I don't mean to quibble, but in that interview they identify themself as a member of a lesbian (married) couple. Different unit of analysis. There are many "lesbian couples" that do not consist of two lesbians. So I am still seeking the great whale of Elliot's former personal identification as a lesbian. At the moment at least from what I can find, it has the same (past) status as their (present) identification as nonbinary: something RS say about them that Elliot does not deny, but not something Elliot has clearly said themselves. As opposed to the (past) gay and the (since 2017) queer and the (2020) trans, which are all explicit and verifiable self-descriptions. Newimpartial (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh? Neither of these looks more masculine or feminine to my eye than the other. It's also a slightly strange argument to make imo... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Look below, new better 3rd image. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Use 2015 photo (or alt 2010 photo below), for reasons listed by others above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Image changed for now while discussion continues – A few days ago, I "closed" the first part of the discussion with consensus to reinstate the edit changing the previous 2010 image to the proposed 2015 image, while discussion about finding a better image continued. After discussion on my talk page, I'm removing the {{atop}} template so that editors don't get the mistaken impression the lead image discussion is over. (The 2015 image remains in the article until a better image is found/agreed-upon.) The original statement appears below:

Original closing statement

Per WP:AVALANCHE, clear consensus in support of replacing the current image with the proposed image.

Although these decisions are made by consensus and are not a headcount, editors preferred the proposed image to the current one by a ratio of roughly 3 to 1. The numbers are: out of 30 participating editors (including the editor who made the edit under discussion), 5 supported keeping the current image, 16 supported changing it to the proposed image, and 3 supported changing it to neither image. Additionally, 6 editors commented without expressly supporting the current or proposed image; on my reading, those six were pretty evenly split: two seemed to lean towards the current image; two towards the proposed image; and two towards neither image.

Both the current and proposed image had arguments in their favor rooted in policy and guidelines, including WP:RECENTISM, the Principle of Least Astonishment (PLA), and MOS:IMAGE. Some editors argued that changing the current picture to the proposed picture because the proposed picture was more recent was an example of WP:RECENTISM. Other editors noted that WP:RECENTISM doesn't explicitly address biography lead images and questioned whether it applied at all. Many editors who supported the proposed image based their support in whole or in part on the proposed image being more recent, and thus, in these editors' views, a better representation of the subject. A recent RFC (disclosure: that I closed) asking whether "most notable" or "most recent" lead images are preferred resulted in near-unanimous consent for making that determination on a case-by-case basis. Thus, there is no global consensus regarding WP:RECENTISM and biography lead images constraining the local consensus that editors could arrive at in this discussion, and no reason to discount the votes on either side on this basis.

As to WP:PLA, some editors though that the current image was "less astonishing" than the proposed image; others argued the opposite. Similarly, many who preferred the current image argued that the proposed image was of too-low quality to be considered, per MOS:IMAGE, whereas many who preferred the proposed image felt that while the quality of the proposed image was lower than the current image, it was nevertheless sufficient for consideration. Astonishment and image quality are both, ultimately, subjective considerations, and there is no reason to discount any votes on either side on these bases.

Ultimately, with all votes being weighed, editors felt, by a 3-to-1 margin, that the proposed image was better than the current image because it was more recent and/or less astonishing, and that the quality was sufficient. This is clear consensus that is unlikely to change if this discussion is left open.

Although consensus was clear to replace the current image with the proposed image, it was also clear that editors on all sides of this debate felt that the proposed image was not ideal, and that a better image should be sought. Thus, this close is without prejudice to further discussion/proposals/RFCs concerning the lead image, and another proposed lead image is being discussed in the next section. In the meantime, I will update the image per the consensus in this discussion. (non-admin closure) Levivich harass/hound 22:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've also added a note at the top of this thread pointing to the discussion of a new image in the next subsection. Levivich harass/hound 18:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding a New Photo

Any ideas for a high-quality photo that better fits Page's currently well-known look? I don't work with images on WP much, but if someone gives me some guidance, I'm happy to look for one. Google Images search with the "Creative Commons licenses" doesn't have anything better than the current two options. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Searching databases such as Google or Flickr is your best bet. There is a list at Commons:Free media resources/Photography which might be useful. Be careful though since sometimes people will upload images they don't own under such licenses. Since the subject is a living person who appears in public, there is no conceivable way to use any current image under WP:FAIRUSE, so if you cannot find a free image, you would either have to take an image yourself (see Commons:Contributing your own work) or convince someone who took an image to license it under a license compatible with Commons (see Commons:Choosing a license). Regards SoWhy 14:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Best to wait a few months or more, before a new photo can be available. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This one is better quality than the 2015 photo, more ambiguous gender presentation; only negative is that he's slightly looking down.
Page at the premiere of Super (2010 American film)
Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean "he" or "they". Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Corrected. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a better image to use in the Infobox. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Does this photo not have the same issues that people are bothered over? It's from the same year, and Page still has long hair and is wearing make-up, which seemed to be the issues with the original picture in the first place. It just has darker lighting. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Completely agree with the above; the only difference between this picture and the one currently used is that this one is poorer quality and has Page looking down. I really don't see why this one is supposed to better represent Page's gender identity, and I also don't think that's something for Wikipedia to decide. Lennart97 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There's actually a big difference; it's just hard to see the subtle hair and makeup changes up close. Look at a full sized image of him at the same 2010 Film premiere: [4], vs. the existing photo uncropped: [5] and an image of his full ensemble: [6]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Here are the three images in the context in the article: exiting version, version 2, version 3. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Other images from the same day are irrelevant to the ones being debated. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I definitely prefer this photo to the 2015 one. In comparison with the current photo, I think this is still slightly worse quality, but also a presentation for Page which is more ubiquitous in his various public appearances. These are both small issues, which balance out, so I think I am 50/50 between this and the current one, and don't object if others are also happy changing to this. Awoma (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this even worth it? To add a new image, I mean. Since, presumably, in a few months at the most, when we have good-enough-quality images of him presenting as male we’ll only have to change it again. --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This was my opinion, per WP:WAIT, but given the quality issues with the current image I think changing to the one given here would be welcome, even if it is only for a couple of months. Awoma (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"masculine" looking photo

Sorry to come in late, but since the discussion was reopened: I have to say I'm very uncomfortable with the whole idea that we needed to find a photo that shows this person as more "masculine" looking and that somehow a 10-year-old baseball cap and less-obvious makeup photo does that and thus is better. Some people who identify and present as men wear makeup and skirts and heels and long hair. Some women who identify and present as women don't wear makeup or skirts or heels or keep their hair long. I don't have any objection to the new photo, but jeez. Why not just wait until we get a post-announcement photo that shows how he presents now? —valereee (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The current picture is how Page has looked for several years at least, while the previous picture was not. There is no need for theoretical speculation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
There are quite a few people commenting above along the lines of a photo which matches Page's gender, judging how masculine or feminine someone looks. I can understand why someone would be unhappy with these statements - it's not for wikipedia to police gender presentations. Awoma (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing pronoun in title of ref article

A 2017 source in the article is titled "Ellen Page says Brett Ratner outed her as gay in sexual remark during X-Men filming" (currently footnote 88). In the changeover to Elliot's pronouns, someone changed the footnote to say: "outed him". I changed the footnote back to "her", since that is the actual title of the source article and would even interfere with finding the article again if the url ever changed. Another editor reverted my change, citing BLP. Shouldn't it be "her", since it is the actual title of the source article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The reverting editor reverted their own edit because it was a mistake. You're right that the title of the source article should not be changed, unless the literal title on the URL is changed. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020 (2)

In the section headed "2016–present: Directorial debut and other work", change "In the film, his character is a young woman who abducts a baby and tries to pass it on as his own" to "In the film, his character is a young woman who abducts a baby and tries to pass it off as her own".

While Elliot Page's pronouns are he/they, he plays a character in the film whose pronouns are she/her. Also, it's clear from context that the intended meaning is "pass it off" (to pretend something is something else), not "pass it on" (to hand something along to another recipient). Schesis (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 done This was part of a mass correction of pronouns throughout the article. This particular pronoun refers to the character played by Page, so should be "her." Awoma (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 Done I replaced "on" with "off" to correct the sentence's meaning. TJScalzo (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality

Shouldn't the article no longer characterise Page as gay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.84.182 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It should refer to Page as having come out as a lesbian. This would remove the ambiguity post transition. It isn't inappropriate to refer to someone's pre transition gender by referencing their previous identification of sexual orientation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.243.143 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Mentioning that he came out as gay in February 2014 is significant to the lead because it was his first acknowledgement of being part of the LGBTQ+ community. It's there as a historical fact, not necessarily as a current characterization. In his post today, Page referred to himself as queer. Language used in the lead and the personal life section could be changed to reflect that Page now defines his sexuality as queer, not gay. TJScalzo (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
"Came out as part of the LGBTQ+ community" would be better than "he came out as gay" here. Looking back we've a transition from L (or Q if L is too binary) to T (or Q) as opposed to G to T or Q.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple issues here, and we have to write carefully. I reviewed the RS from 2014, and what Elliot did at that time was quite deliberately "come out as gay". Obviously other terms/identities were available at that time, like "lesbian" and "queer", so we have to understand "gay" as a conscious choice. Now, of course, he identifies as "queer" and possibly not as "gay" or "lesbian" (unless we learn otherwise), but that doesn't change what the (well-publicized) 2014 coming out actually was. Newimpartial (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Gender and sexual preference are a spectrum and continuously evolve. Go by what reliable sources say; if reliable sources from the time say "Ellen came out as gay" then that's what we write (changing his name of course). If current sources say "Elliot came out as lesbian in 2014, and as transgender in 2020", then we can write that. Don't try to interpret based on your own understanding (see WP:OR). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-binary

Has there been any indication from Page himself that they are non-binary? I can see one news source stating this, but they may be incorrectly inferring that from Page's acceptance of neutral pronouns. I intend to remove this unless there is more credible reporting on this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't trust CNN and NBC? That's...interesting. Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, non-binary and transgender are not mutually exclusive. (Many people who identify as non-binary also identify as transgender, as non-binary is a gender identity.) It seems the current indication is that he neither identifies as a man or a woman, so I believe non-binary is currently fine. A more LGBTQ+ centered article and his Instagram post are two pages worth checking out. Perryprog (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Do we have an instance of Page describing himself as non-binary or not? Such a quote is not contained in the GLAAD article, and the Instagram post no longer exists. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
We rely on reliable sources. I say again: what's wrong with CNN and NBC? Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Come on, everyone knows they're biased as hell. Especially CNN. If you don't see that then you're living in a fantasy world. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Biased source != unreliable source. See WP:RS The Verified Cactus 100% 04:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not aware of any community consensus that CNN or NBC are biased, and it is important to remember that biased sources are not necessarily unreliable. WP:RSP is always a good general guide. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As explained in WP:BIASEDSOURCE which is in WP:RS, being biased does not automatically mean unreliable. A lot depends upon the WP:RSCONTEXT of the source whether it's WP:UNDUE. It seems to me that most reliable sources are "biased" to some degree, but that doesn't mean what they're reporting should be automatically discounted. If, however, only a few media outlets are only making this claim, then perhaps it should be treated with care and not included for the time being to avoid any WP:RECENTism issues. Is there some particular reason why information such as this needs to be added asap? Perhaps things will be clarified after more time has passed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
What's wrong with them is that they may be reporting Page identifies as non-binary without it being true. I've seen no evidence on either the CNN article or the Variety article. Many sources aren't reporting Page identifying as non-binary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I say again, we follow reliable sources because they're, you know, reliable. Are there any reliable sources suggesting that Elliot does not identify as nonbinary? Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Them claiming Elliot is non binary is probably from his use of both he/him and they/them. In my experience, a large amount of binary people are comfortable with both. As shocking as it sounds, just because a source is marked as reliable doesn't make it an omnipotent being. There is no evidence either way, and until Page releases their own statement, the case should be treated as any other where we're uncertain of a specific gender identity. All we know is that his gender is at least masculine. Alex Skye Kroy (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we don't have any source for a masculine gender except in the sense of gendered pronouns. The sourcing for a masculine gender identity is as weak as or weaker than the sourcing for a nonbinary identity. And while WP does defer to the gender identity announced by the subject - where one exists - that only gives us "trans". It would not be unDUE in that situation to report also that a large mass of sources is also reporting "nonbinary", though as it is uncertain it should not be stated in Wikivoice. Newimpartial (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Most reliable sources are not making the claim, and neither does Elliot Page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:NOTTRUTH.  Aar  ►  05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Onetwothreeip: "[the source(s)] may be incorrectly inferring that from Page's acceptance of neutral pronouns." He didn't say anywhere that he is non-binary. It's best to be cautious about this, as this question is not clear. - Daveout(talk) 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
When you read the linked sources, they all seem to say that Page is Non-Binary without his ever actually coming out and saying so. Just because CNN and NBC made assumptions based on they/them pronouns doesn't necessarily mean that assumption is correct. Without word from Pages himself on the subject, it's all speculation. -- spazure (contribs) 01:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but right now we have reliable sources for trans, reliable sources for nonbinary, and no reliable sources for trans male (which onetwothreeip tried to add to the article). If that changes, we will correct, but our job isn't to overthink what the sources say. Right now, we have no sources saying they aren't nonbinary (or trans). Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
We don't need to add "transgender male" as that's implied, but there have been sources saying so. There is no reason for a source to say that anybody does not identify as non-binary. None of the sources quote Page as identifying as non-binary. We do not operate on any deadlines, so if it becomes clear from Page's statements that they identify as non-binary, we can add that to the article when and if it occurs. If we are reasonably unsure of something, we can always wait for more clarity, which is far better than having to retract something later. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The WP:Reliable sources (e.g. [7]) say that he describes himself as non-binary (not just that he is non-binary, but that he personally describes himself that way). Given reliable sources are reliable, this means that Page has stated that he is non-binary. Just because some sources do not mention this doesn't mean anything (every source does not have to include every piece of information). If there are reliable sources saying that he describes himself as a man, please link to them (note that a source just saying transgender is not the same as a source saying transgender man, as non-binary people can be transgender too). If not, I see no reason why him being non-binary can't be added to the article. GreenComputer (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The fact that they retweeted and thanked without correction posts referring to them as non-binary makes me think that the sentence is accurate EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah it's certainly possible, maybe even probable that he is. Then again as long as we aren't trying to throw enby or trans male into the article itself, it doesn't really matter. The article as written looks good (excepting of course the ongoing discourse regarding deadnames, which has yet to reach a consensus[8] and the discussion on the photo[9]) -- spazure (contribs) 08:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Whether or not Page identifies as non-binary, the pronouns (he/them) seem essential, at least for right now. I think we should add them back to the lead. They are not redundant because trans/non-binary can be accompanied with different pronouns, and the article itself only uses "he," leaving ambiguous whether it's he/they, he only, he/they/she, or something else. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Both male and neutral pronouns apply to literally every male person, transgender or not. The article should use both, so we don't need to state which pronouns we use. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
To use both would be inconsistent and confusing. Choose either of them and go with it. El Millo (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this. Either one works (absent a statement of preference from Elliot), but once we choose one, we should stick with it; otherwise, the language will get confusing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed on this one. The most recent statement he made says he/they, so either is acceptable. -- spazure (contribs) 05:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing inconsistent or confusing about using gendered and neutral pronouns for one person. Every person that has ever existed has been referred with both neutral and gendered pronouns. Neutral pronouns are not simply for people who identify as non-binary. Elliot Page himself is clearly not confused either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you point us to any other encyclopedia articles that use pronouns the way you describe? Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

can you change the "Birth name" to "Dead Name" as that is the term used in the community, if not I understand, thank you for reading. Fulw (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I updated the phrasing to match what's used in Caitlyn Jenner's article. TJScalzo (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020 (2)

Remove link for Naya Legend of the Golden Dolphin as the linked material is not representative of the title NotABumblebee (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting that. TompaDompa (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page

Discussing here rather than talk page for the benefit of other editors, but I'm just confirming you're intending to include a tabulated awards section within the article Koavf? I don't feel it's current content equals that of the version of the subjects awards page prior to you changing it to a redirect back here. That and it's been an hour since you did such. — IVORK Talk 02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume they deleted all of the content on the page because there were no sources. While I don't think that actually makes it original research as Koavf asserted in their edit comment, it does mean it can't be verified. With the number of awards that Elliot has won, I feel it would be fine to list them on a separate page. We just need sources to prove each of them. TJScalzo (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
IVORK, I am not intending to include that, no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Justin is edit warring to turn the awards and nominations page into a redirect, going against the prevailing consensus here. Could someone please revert him to restore the page? Being a long-term editor does not give him license to effectively blank the page without obtaining any consensus here, at AfD, or at another suitable venue. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Does the term lesbian still apply?

misgendering IP question

Is she still a lesbian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.225.54 (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not for us to speculate or discuss. We stick to verifiable facts covering their various announcements and stick to that. If they want to clarify that, they can comment on that themselves. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
During a previous time when a person identified as female, using the term "lesbian" would denote gynephilia (attraction to females) so if at a later point a person identifies as male, if they have not described any alteration to their preference for females then I believe that would be described as heterosexual. The question is if we should actually print that logical conclusion prior to a source highlighting that technicality. WakandaQT (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The relevance of that binary has not been established for this BLP subject. For editors to impose one would be original research. Newimpartial (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
A sidenote: however clunky or insensitive some editors may feel the anon's question to be, it is a little crass to hide it in a box to spare readers of the talk page from being exposed to it. We need to see what the question is to understand the replies to it! It is the kind of question many readers of this article, or just people who have heard about Page's change of name and gender identity, may have regardless of whether it is considered so rude a question as to merit being hidden behind a content warning. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The hatted comment - which is only one click away! - misgenders a BLP subject. I was following WP:TPG very cautiously when I renamed the topic to ask the question without a BLP vio, and collapsed rather than removed the OP comment. Refactoring would have been justified in policy, IMO, and I took the least intrusive policy-compliant approach. Misgendering is not really tolerated on WP Talk pages, and I have seen editors banned for that. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Any wordplay arguments here would constitute original research, which we avoid. If sources say he is no longer a lesbian, or never was a lesbian, then we'll follow them. Awoma (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Awoma, No, we don't categorize by current status. E.g. see Category:Presidents of the United States, which has more than one article in it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes we do. Otherwise our "living people" categories would be full of corpses. Newimpartial (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial, Give me an example other than "living people" which is kept for BLP reasons. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In all seriousness, we do remove people from gender categories that no longer apply to them, even when they are still alive. Newimpartial (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There are lots of categories which people can slip in or out of. For example, Category:Marxists and Category:Former Marxists. There are other categories, such as US presidents as you mention, where it would be useless to do this, and much more meaningful to say someone is in that category for good. I think it makes much more sense to only apply the "lesbian" category to people who currently identify as lesbian, or who did so at the time of their death. Someone may very well identify as lesbian, have this be reported by reliable sources, and then realise that they are not, at which point it would be silly to keep the lesbian category for them. Similarly, in this situation, if sources say Page is not a lesbian, wikipedia should follow those sources. Awoma (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Any mention of "lesbian" has been removed it appears, so this is a moot point. But I disagree that it is original research, it's so common sense it's WP:BLUESKY. Being a man and a lesbian are by definition mutually exclusive. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 10:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    CaptainEek, Being a man and a lesbian are by definition mutually exclusive. Nowhere has Elliot said that he is a man, not even the sources that assume he's nonbinary because he stated usage of they/them pronouns. -- spazure (contribs) 13:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    I would question removal of the term "lesbian" from this article, but on different grounds. Between being outed and/or coming out several years ago and the very recent gender identity and name change announcement, Page was described by reliable sources as a lesbian. The recent announcement does not change the fact that Page was described that way during that period of time, and this ought to be reflected in the article, though I can see that any way we word all this is going to be messy. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    There may be some instances where Elliot had self-identified as lesbian - I think I found a Facebook post - but they seem to have quite deliberately come out as gay and have shifted to queer as their primary self-identification long before yesterday's announcement. "Lesbian" seems to have been more a label promoted by journalists than by Elliot, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for digging into the sources on that point. That's useful information to inform how the article should treat the question of Page's sexuality. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    That's a good point Newimpartial, thanks. I agree with Perrprog's assessment that queer is an appropriate and sufficient identifier. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that in Elliot's Instagram post where he came out he identified himself as queer, so that seems sufficient for his current sexual orientation. Perryprog (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: when do you think this shift happened? I notice in February 2019 that Page quipped "as if lesbians don’t wear dresses", but perhaps that was the final self-referential use? WakandaQT (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I see self-references as "gay" from 2014-17 and self-references as "queer" from 2017 to present. I don't currently see any clear self-references as "lesbian", though I thought I saw one on Facebook once (the one you cite doesn't seem clearly self-referential to me). Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020 (3)

Elliot uses both he/him AND they/them pronouns, if you could alternate between them instead of using solely he/him to respect their identity that would be nice. 64.93.111.105 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how feasible it would be to alternate between two different pronouns. It's important to maintain readability and having multiple pronouns within the same context could be confusing for readers. My understanding of Elliot announcing he uses he/they pronouns was that either one is fine. I don't think it means we're expected to routinely swap back and forth, especially within the same article. TJScalzo (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Many transgender people who prefer he/them pronouns, like Page does, just mean that they're equally fine with both, not that they want them to alternate. In addition, GLAAD suggests
DO use he/they pronouns when referring to Elliot Page. This means you can use either he/him or they/them pronouns to refer to Elliot. Both pronouns are acceptable. If you need to explain this to your audience, you can include a sentence that says "Elliot Page uses both he/him and they/them pronouns; this story will use he/him when referring to Page."[1]
  1. ^ https://www.glaad.org/blog/elliot-page-oscar-nominated-star-umbrella-academy-speaks-out-about-being-transgender
Gbear605 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Gbear605 is correct. We don't need to alternate between pronouns. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we use "he/him" or "they/them"?

As he hasn't stated a preference between he or they, I'd think that using they/them would be best in article space specifically so people trying to look up "that girl who played Juno" don't have he/him thrown in their faces, exactly because of principle of least astonishment. Obviously if his only pronouns were he/him, we'd do what is necessary to be respectful -- but in this particular case, he is clearly giving us a choice. -- spazure (contribs) 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the principle of least astonishment is a good argument to use "them" pronouns over "he". If someone is wanting to look up the actor who was in Juno they're at the very least going to find out that they have a different name and gender identity than they expect them to - the pronouns really aren't adding much more in the way of astonishment. Personally if I was to choose which pronoun to use in this article I'd go for "he", just because that's the one Elliot Page lists first on both his Twitter profile and in his announcement, and as other editors have noted it would be quite jarring to change them seemingly at random within an article. PaintTrash (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There isn't really a strong case either way since he says he's fine with either. I'll gladly go with whatever the hivemind decides tbh. -- spazure (contribs) 18:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with using "he" because it comes first, if no preference is otherwise stated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be some confused replies here. Using both male pronouns and neutral pronouns in an article is perfectly reasonable for any person for who male pronouns are appropriate, which includes the majority of Wikipedia biographies. To enforce the use of only gendered pronouns or only neutral pronouns on any biography is without reason. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC
Internal language consistency is a perfectly good reason to only use one type of pronoun within an article, even if the choice of pronoun to use is more or less arbitrary. I don't think it's absolutely forbidden for us to break consistency with Page's pronouns, but we should have a good reason for doing so, and I haven't heard such a good reason yet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As a note, using he/they or she/they pronouns does not generally mean someone uses them simultaneously, it means the person is fine with either (although they may have a preference for one of the other). We use singular "they" widely in articles, I see no reason to try to force one or the other or some quota of "they" in this article. We can use what makes the best copyediting sense. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 10:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I support "they/them" unless Page at some points specifies a preference. Jmill1806 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • GLAAD has a style guide for Elliot Page. GLAAD mainly used he/him.[10] The following RS also use he/him: NYTimes, WaPo, Chicago Tribune, and The Guardian. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand what everyone is saying, but I think section-by-section consistency might be more relevant here than whole-article consistency, and I feel that based on my writing comments about this on Talk, "he" works well for the lede and personal life sections and "they" is effective for the early life and career sections. But that's a stylistic preference, not a principle, and I am just offering it for consideration. What I think *isn't* appropriate is an eradication of pronouns as was recently the case at Caitlyn Jenner. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!, y'all rock

Really impressive to see page editors work through this, thanks for your hard work. As a clueless bystander, it seems it's going better than, e.g. Chelsea Manning. Hugs to all, I'm off to donate. (Can sections be nominated for deletion? ;-) ) -- Skierpage (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes it's great to see! Well done everyone involved. :) AussieWikiDan (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to drop in myself and say that it's really heartening to see Wikipedians take such a professional and supportive approach to updating the BLP of a transgender person. In a world where in so many ways we get no support, seeing acceptance and professional editing be the norm is incredibly encouraging. Thank you everyone for your hard work! -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Image of Elliot

I think the image of Elliot should be changed to the most recent one of them where he is looking more masculine and more theirself. Can someone else add the image because last time I tried to add an image it was a nightmare and i cba to do that Thanks Respectgeometry (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You are not alone in wanting a better image! There is a discussion above on this. Unfortunately, of the two alternatives available to us, one is very low quality, and the other lacks the appropriate license. Hopefully we will have a good alternative soon, but until then it's normal for wikipedia to stick with what we have. There's no rush with these things, and a recent, high-quality photo is an inevitability. Awoma (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Well said. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could get in contact with Page or his agent—if he feels strongly about old images of himself (not a given) then that's incentive to take a (high-quality-enough-)selfie that we could use. I've had hit-and-miss experience in the past getting in contact with subjects and asking if they can release images but sometimes it works. — Bilorv (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(For anyone interested: take a look at WP:DCP and this OTRS tool.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I was looking through his instagram and saw https://www.instagram.com/p/B3MsLbrBjJ2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link (the one currently used for their profile picture), if we could use that. The lighting and the sunglasses may not be ideal though. Alex Skye Kroy (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue with this is the license. There is another image option in the section above though. Would be great to have your thoughts on this along with the current image. Awoma (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Both have issues of lighting and quality. A crop of this image or the 2015 image seem like a fair tradeoff among the available options. I'm also for a better current image (from the last couple of years). – SJ + 20:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not like the picture is a misrepresentation in any way. I don't see why we should change it to fit our percieved notions on how we think he should look now Anon0098 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Has Page registered a legal name change?174.0.48.147 (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For our purposes, it doesn't matter. The name he has chosen is his "real" name, as documented with WP:RS -- spazure (contribs) 13:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Why doesn't it matter?174.0.48.147 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Why would it matter? Elliot is the best authority on the question of his own name. The view of other people could in theory be notable but should not determine how Wikipedia should refer to a person. Whether those other people claim legal authority over names is not relevant to Wikipedia. 2A01:4B00:867A:A800:BD3A:55E0:39E6:DA90 (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Elliot is the best authority on the question of his own name. You can go with this for present and future usage but it is more of a stretch to suggest that it apply retrospectively. Page's name was "Ellen" whether by self- or third party account until very recently. While a person can call themselves whatever they like and ask that others use their new name, the past is what is is regardless of how any of us including Page might now feel about it. If you disagree with this it would be a good idea to argue for a general change in policy, or present reasons for an exception in this case. At present our article on Cat Stevens has as its title the name he used at the time of his greatest notabity and prominence, but refers to him as "Steven Georgiou" in early life and "Yusuf Islam" since 1978, because these are the names he was known by, according to himself and to third parties during those periods of his life. Would you suggest we change this to refer to him as "Islam" from birth, or are you seeking a special exception for articles on trans people? Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In Wikipedia policy (MOS:CHANGEDNAME), we distinguish between GENDERID-related name changes and all other name changes, and treat them differently. I understand that in your feelz the situation is different, but here we try to work by WP consensus and not by what particular cantankerous WP editors feel. Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You've generally been civil and constructive in these discussions, which I really appreciate, but you're at risk of failing to assume good faith by talking about my "feelz". I agree that we should work toward consensus, but that doesn't stop me from questioning the logic or pointing out problems of flawed policies implemented thus far. You'll note that I have not edited the article in breach of the policy. I fail to see why the Cat Stevens approach doesn't work in the case of all name changes by people notable both before and after their change of name. You assert an exception in trans cases and I'll willingly concede that you have some precedent in Wikipedia policy discussion to back you up on that, but I still don't think the case has been adequately made. Actually if I were being uncharitable I might suggest the case for an exception here appears to rest on the "feelz" of people who are preoccupied with advancing a particular narrow view of gender, which brings with it taboos against 'deadnaming' and so on. It would be unfortunate if Page were to feel hurt by being credited as Ellen rather than Elliot in every film made to date, but nevertheless this is how the films are credited, and we should describe them as such, using the name Ellen Page just as we use the name Cat Stevens in reference to Yusuf Islam's releases before he changed his name in the late 70s. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, we aleady have a guideline of some years' standing, MOS:DEADNAME, that instructs us to distinguish gender-related name changes from other name changes. No argument has been made here why this article should be treated any differently from other trans BLPs, so that is the governing policy. If you want that to change, you should propose a change on the MOS page that would be the polar opposite of both the most recently concluded RfC and the direction proposed by the current one. Making arguments on this page that the current site-wide consensus is wrongheaded is just not relevant or helpful and can't produce anything useful, which tempts me to speculate - equally unproductive - about why this bootless discussion continues. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As per WP:GENDERID we give preference to self-reported name. If there exists any legal name change, it's unlikely that would be considered notable enough for inclusion in the article. Awoma (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
But this isn't Page's personal blog, it is an encyclopedia whose purpose is providing factual information. Did you really mean to say that changing a name through no other process than declaring it is notable, but legally changing it would not be?174.0.48.147 (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This exact question was already answered at Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Legal_name -- spazure (contribs) 13:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not. That refers to how the article is titled and how the person is referred to in the WP:BLP, e.g. "Page donates to charity." That page does not talk about when and whether a legal name change is notable. Jmill1806 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
To elaborate: the mere fact of a legal name change, if and when it happens, may or may not be notable for Wikipedia to mention somewhere in the article--it might well be considered by reliable sources as simply bureaucratic paperwork not worthy of making note of. The absence of a legal name change, however, has no relevance for whether we should use Elliot's new name (a common implication by people who discuss legal name changes in this context). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the reduncdancy, but I had started typing this before these responses were here. As stated above, they are just sticking to WP:GENDERID. It states No. Wikipedia's policy on article titles... gives no weight to legal names. You could take it up on Wikipedia talk:Gender identity if you felt it necessary. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Events like this really bring out the under-bridge-dwellers and marine mammals. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Even ignoring the obvious WP:GENDERID self-identification consideration the legality of the name change is irrelevant, what is relevant is that it is being reported by reliable sources as his name. Wikipedia works from sources. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think a Canadian legal name change, if mentioned in reliable sources, would be notable enough for a mention in the Elliot_Page#Personal_life section, but it would certainly not supersede the lead content. One's legal name is only a small part of the overall scope of "name" in human society. Jmill1806 (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much all of this can be summed up by WP:COMMONNAME, he claimed it's his name, almost every subsequent WP:RS has been using it. One does not need their marriage certificate cited to have their article changed — IVORK Talk 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Basically it takes more than self-reference, you'd need a bunch of sources also repeating it? This would prevent stuff like some comedian saying "My name is Trump McBiden" to get their article renamed. WakandaQT (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, takes the majority of sources to refer to the person that way, there is no need for empirical proof via documentation that a name change has occurred. — IVORK Talk 22:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020 (4)

Orwellaintdead (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In the personal life section it reads "On February 14, 2014, Page, who was then presenting as female..". However, it is not possible to change one's sex (male/female) so she would've been "presenting as a a woman", since it is generally accepted that an individual can change from a woman to a man, their gender, and vice-versa

 Not done the word "female" can be used to refer to the gender (rather than the sex), as it is being used in this instance. — Bilorv (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Source? Separating "female" and "woman" is, in my understanding, a large part of the push to distinguish sex and gender in the English language. Jmill1806 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Which has largely failed. We use sex assignment at birth language now.  EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Incongruity of statements

There is plenty of discussion already about how Page's recent gender announcement should be handled, and whether it should be applied anachronistically. If the decision is indeed that Wikipedia should use "Elliot" and "he" retrospectively, which is how the article reads as things stand, we will need to address the resulting incongruous statements, for example:

"In 2007, he had his widespread breakthrough for his leading role as the title character in the comedy-drama film Juno." [the Juno article explains the film is about a pregnant 16-year-old girl] ... "For his performance, Page was nominated for several awards, including an Academy Award for Best Actress, a BAFTA Award for Best Actress, a Critics' Choice Award for Best Actress, a Golden Globe Award for Best Actress, and a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role."

The article asserts that Page is and always has been male, and presents nomination for multiple awards for "best actress", "female actor" etc for playing the role of a pregnant woman without the slightest comment or context, as if all this were utterly unremarkable, with the casting of a man in the role of a pregnant woman provoking no comment at the time or indeed since. How do editors who take the view that Page is and always has been male propose to reword these passages, or are they to be left as-is, to the bafflement of readers? Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

While I can't pretend to any CRYSTAL ball , there are multiple RS stating that Elliot is nonbinary. The idea that there is any incongruity at all in a nonbinary person playing a young pregnant woman seems to me like something that needs to be explained, rather than reflecting a potential problem with the article. I didn't think ciscasting was really a thing, yet. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
"The idea that there is any incongruity at all in a nonbinary person playing a young pregnant woman seems to me like something that needs to be explained" As you allude to with your reference to "ciscasting" it has recently become noticeable that in certain circles there is held to be something improper or offensive about casting actors in roles that don't correspond to certain of the actors' own identity groups, especially their race, gender, trans status, sexuality or disability. This is despite the adoption of a persona that is not your own being the whole basis of acting. If instead of Junior being a comedy about the idea of a man becoming pregnant, Arnold Schwarzenegger had been cast as a pregnant woman in a non-comedic role, you can bet that would have elicited comment at the time and he would not have been nominated for "Best Actress" or "Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor" however commendable his performance. The fact that no such comment was made about Page (by all accounts a man according to the current text of the article), and that we don't address this, should prompt a rethink of the way the article is worded. It will certainly come across very strangely to our readers. I'm not trying to be a PITA here, incidentally. I really think that the way Wikipedia has handled the recent announcement from Page by revising the article in this incongruous way has resulted in absurdities in the text that we can't pretend are not there. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, until there are acting categories for nonbinary and genderqueer actors - or no gender references in acting prizes at all - how do you expect nonbinary and genderqueer people to get their awards? That seems like a pretty crass incentive to stay in the closet, TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
And choosing male pronouns doesn't make anyone a man, or give them a male gender identity, FFS. Declaring a male gender identity does. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that the line "Page publicly came out as ... transgender in December 2020, announcing his new name as Elliot Page" in the lede, in its own paragraph break, is sufficient explanation. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with WritKeeper. The article doesn't state anywhere that he has "always been a male". In fact, any reasonable reader should be able to understand that a transgender person formely belonged to another gender (in this case, female). The dates of the transition and the awards are clearly specified. - Daveout(talk) 17:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
"any reasonable reader should be able to understand that a transgender person formely belonged to another gender (in this case, female)." You may think that is clear but I would put money on it that some of the editors that support the recent rewording of the article consider an announcement of gender identity to be the public revelation of what has always been true: i.e. they believe Page is not and never has been female, and to say otherwise is misgendering. Others among them will consider gender identity to be fluid, such that she was once female, but he is now male (or they are now non-binary). However, if we go with the latter interpretation and consider Page to have belonged to a different gender in the past, it's not clear why "she was nominated for Best Actress for her performance in Juno" is a controversial statement. Meanwhile our readers are even more confused about what exactly the position is here. Beorhtwulf (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do see incongruity with a person winning an award in a category for people with a gender identity that they don't match. I would suggest that we sparingly accompany such sentences with reference to Page publicly identifying as female at the time e.g. For his performance, Page was nominated for several awards, including—as Page publicly identified as female at the time—an Academy Award for Best Actress, a BAFTA Award for Best Actress, a Critics' Choice Award for Best Actress, a Golden Globe Award for Best Actress, and a Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role. People do not read articles from top to bottom (and there's no reason that they should), but pick parts at random, so someone may stumble across this paragraph before reading anything about Page being transgender. It doesn't strike me as an issue to reference the gender that Page identified as (publicly) at the time if there is no reference to Page being transgender within a couple of paragraphs of the text. Wording choices are solicited as we would want to make this as brief as possible a note, but also as clear as possible to people less familiar with transgender topics.
I've not implemented this as I see it might be contentious. However, for a similar reason, I've re-added "assigned female at birth" to "Early life", because we cannot assume that a reader has read the lead, and someone would be confused if they didn't know about Page being transgender (more likely in a few months time to people who watch something Page is in but aren't aware of him beforehand) and read the body in order. — Bilorv (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I support the reintroduction of AFAB to Early life but am not so convinced about re-inscribing identifying as female at the time in sections about awards (or for that matter, lesbian identity, if sourcing ever emerges for that). If Elliot does turn out to identify as nonbinary, that opens a whole potential can of worms about nonbinary lesbianism and nonbinary people vs. gendered awards. If Elliot ends up identifying as transmasculine, then I'll have a lot more patience for such explanations, but that hadn't happened last I heard, and if they end up as nonbinary then I think those explanations would end up as unhelpful scaffolding that would actually prevent the reader from seeing the relevant issues clearly. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
My argument was predicated on the assumption that Page does not identify as female (in full or in part) and won't be nominated for such "Best Actress" awards in future. If I'm reading your message correctly and our disagreement is over these assumptions, then I suppose we wait for more information. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect Elliot to identify as female, but there isn't a category for Best Nonbinary Actor in major awards, and the questions about opening up Best Actor are fairly vexed (viz., why shouldn't performances be nominated in that category regardless of gender? Do AMAB nonbinary folx have to compete in "Best Actress"? If so, why?). This may not be the case that blows the system open, but who knows: it might be. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

As I can no longer edit this page, due to it being placed under extended protection, I request for this sentence to be added to the "personal life" section, after the part detailing Justin Trudeau's support for him.

Several other celebrities, such as Ellen DeGeneres, James Gunn, and Kumail Nanjiani expressed support for Page on social media after the announcment.

Source: Silva, Cynthia (December 1, 2020). "'Brave,' 'beautiful': Celebs support 'Juno' star Elliot Page after he announces he's trans". NBC. Archived from the original on December 2, 2020. Retrieved December 2, 2020.

Doomhiker (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done in this edit, as it's clearly not the sort of content extended-confirmed protection is meant to keep out. — Bilorv (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sex assignment at birth

This conversation has driven off into the weeds on an issue that won't be solved here. The AFAB/AMAB terminology is what is currently in use. If you think that or other general gender issues inappropriate, you will need to raise the issue at a more appropriate venue, I suggest MOS:GENDERID. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claiming that the person in question was assigned a female at birth makes it look like such assignment was arbitrary. Wouldn't it be better to claim she was born a biological female? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources on the lives of Trans people don't use such vague concepts as "biological female". Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Biological female is not vague, actually it used frequently in Wikipedia itself:
"the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells). Barring rare medical conditions, most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes. Female characteristics vary between different species with some species containing more well defined female characteristics, such as the presence of pronounced mammary glands. There is no single genetic mechanism behind sex differences in different species and the existence of two sexes seems to have evolved multiple times independently in different evolutionary lineages"
We shouldn't have double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Clearly WP:BLP is a double-standard, and we should treat nonhuman and human subjects the same. SMH. 21:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The community and WMF decided it was legally and morally necessary following the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. — Bilorv (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The scientific studies that have been conducted into the neurology of transgenderism all indicate that a transgender male is not, in fact, biologically female from birth, so to say they were born as a biological female would be an error.Ddaveonz (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I know that there are studies that point out differences in trangender brains. But brains are much more variable than gonads, and sexual biology is primarily about reproduction, all other sexual characteristics are a byproduct of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
↑ Exactly, Newimpartial. "Assigned female at birth" or "assigned male at birth" is established phrasing already. (Also, he.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
It is one thing to take the view that a person's gender is purely a matter of self-definition, such that if Page begins identifying as male this must be assented to by everyone at all times, including retrospectively. It is yet another to suggest that Page is not even biologically female, and that something nefarious was perpetrated back in 1987 to impose this claim on a helpless baby boy. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Where does this article discuss Elliot's biologically female status, or otherwise? Newimpartial (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The article is presently worded as if Page is and always has been male, but was for unspecified reasons "assigned female at birth", rather than the question of the newborn's biological sex being answered through straightforward observation, as happens in the overwhelming majority of cases (including of people who in later life identify as trans). Of course we don't know what went on back in '87, and what false claims of femaleness the doctors might have made about the young boy Elliot, whom the article discusses as if this were not an anachronism. But this lack of knowledge of intimate details that are none of our business anyway is precisely why we should not be making unwarranted claims about arbitrary sex assignment. Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I would encourage you to read up on the science behind transgenderism before assuming Elliot's biological sex at birth. Transgender neurology is much more complicated than you seem to realise, and the science suggests that actually it would be broadly accurate to describe a transgender male as a person with a biologically male brain inside a biologically female body. Hence it's accurate to say "they were assigned female at birth" because no one's disputing the fact that Elliot was commonly 'known' as female, and because it's scientifically inaccurate to call a transgender person "biologically female" or "biologically male". Ddaveonz (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I have indeed read some of the science, and have no wish to oversimplify anything, let alone this complex and emotive topic. But your interpretation of it is categorically not what I came away with. In particular, you use the term "biologically male brain", as if this has a meaning as unambiguous as "biologically male gametes", but of course it has nothing of the sort. Instead we could say there are some features of the brain more often observed in men and some more often observed in women, and perhaps there is evidence that trans people show a statistical tendency to exhibit some of the features of the other sex, and this may go some way to accounting for why they come to feel that their personality does not accord with the body they were born in. Anyway, I can't see how we can continue this line of discussion here without going off on a complete tangent about broader trans issues. I engaged in discussion on this talk page because I thought it patently absurd that on the basis of a statement about name change and gender identity released yesterday the article was edited with lightning speed to claim retrospectively that Ellen Page never existed except as an accursed deadname, and that the actor we saw in Juno was in fact a man named Elliot, contrary to all impressions at the time including Page's own self-identification. I have tried to engage in good faith but am now faced with the bewildering claim that, beyond any considerations of gender identity, Page was never even female at all, even in the straightforward biological sense. Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
English-language pronouns have always reflected gender, not "biological sex", and in the 21st century their use more specifically reflects gender identity. Nothing in the article says anything about Elliot's anatomy or chromosomes, about which we know very little and which are, as I have said before, basically out of scope for a BLP. Sex assignment is the framework within which trans lives are discussed by the reliable sources, so this is the language we use in trans BLPs. It isn't an anachronism - it is how trans lives are discussed in the best available sources. It you don't want to follow the practices of the highest-quality reliable sources, there are other user-generated projects you can contribute to that don't follow the five pillars. Newimpartial (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how falsely claiming someone murdered a head of state is comparable to making a biologically correct statement. I am not a radical, nor a bigot, I perfectly understand that the person in question has sovereignty over self identity, and we should respect that. Denying she was born was a biological female on the other hand, is like changing someone's birth country in Wikipedia because of a claim of the living subject itself, even if evidence points to the contrary.

Stop misgendering the subject of this article; it is a WP:CIVIL violation.
And nobody is Denying [anyone] was born...a biological female - that whole form of terminology is just out of scope. How many off-wiki biographies have you read that use the term "biological female"? Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand your position. Until now the debate has mostly been about how we treat gender identity, but are you now suggesting that a claim about a person's biological sex, as opposed to their self-declared gender identity, is a form of misgendering? Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The misgendering comes from the user referring to Page as "she". El Millo (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Gender and sex were considered basically equal in English until very recently. So it makes no sense to say that "she" and "he" traditionally meant gender but not sex. Still I reiterate that I fully accept treating the subject as he wishes. I used "she" when I referred to the past, when Page self identified as a female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's still misgendering, though. Neither the discourse outside WP nor civility standards on WP permit this argument that I was referring to an earlier time so the pronoun I used was ok. Just don't do it. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry. From now on I will align to the established norms of Newspeak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The operating principle is don't be a dick. It's easy to remember. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
That was the first time I ever saw the claim that an ambiguous "discourse" does not allow a certain argument. "Being a dick" is quite subjective, and that was never my goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, you have been given a mulligan and not taken to ANI so far, because it's your first time. If I were you, I'd consider that a win. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Your whole argument for retrospective application here seems to be based on the premise that references to someone using a name and pronouns they used at the time without issue, and which everyone else used without issue, including the reliable sources we use to write our articles, is a violation of "don't be a dick", and that this takes priority over paltry considerations like accuracy. Even if you were justified in this moral outrage, it is a subjective argument rooted in emotion. Beyond odd corners of the internet, few people accept it, though more acquiesce to it because of the vehemence with which they are accused of bigotry even for well-meaning attempts to discuss the matter and learn more. Your raising of objections like "civility standards on WP [do not] permit this argument", with the implicit threat of reverts and blocks if people persist in what you regard as misgendering, exclude from participation in these discussions all but a small group of people who are sufficiently preoccupied with the trans issue that they have internalized all the shifting rules and taboos about what you can and can't say. We will look back in a few years and marvel at these discussions, which have the character of conversations during a religious revival that some people are swept up in to the bafflement of all around them. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree Beorhtwulf. It is a bit as if we were not allowed to refer to Mohammed Ali as Cassius Clay, or Yusuf Islam as Cat Stevens, when talking about their life before conversion to Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you actually read our articles, but while Yusuf Islam takes the approach you imply, of one name per period, Mohammed Ali always generally refers to its subject by the COMMONNAME, simply noting Cassius Clay in passing, which is the same approach we use for Trans people who became notable with their deadname. There simply isn't any expectation that articles will generally use the name a person actually employed at a particular time; as I have noted previously, for earlier historical figures this would quickly become blindingly opaque.

And to Beorhtwulf, don't be a dick should also be read as a prohibition against slippery slope and strawman arguments, both of which you employ in your reply to me immediately above. I never said or implied that "civility standards on WP [do not] permit this argument"; what I said is that civility standards do not permit misgendering BLP subjects on Talk pages. You can make the argument that misgendering is ok - just don't do it - but it has been a long time since the Caitlyn Jenner RfC and the creation of MOS:GENDERID, and that question is now quite settled and not likely to be reopened in your favor. I don't think your CRYSTAL ball is working, but in any event you would be better off recognizing the consensus all around you - even if you don't agree with it - or else find another collaborative project with less context-sensitive standards.

You also argue that Beyond odd corners of the internet, few people accept the principle that deadnaming is harmful, which may be the crux of the issue, because mileage clearly varies. I am cis (strike the cymbal), but I meet trans and nonbinary people far more often (as a fraction of all human contacts) in "real life" than I do on WP or elsewhere online. And I live in a country, as I have noted elsewhere, where gender identity (and gender presentation) are legally prohibited grounds of discrimination and where anti-trans activism is a hate crime. So to me the odd corners of the internet are where I find people with views like yours, out of sync with the communities of expertise on these issues and the online and "real" communities where I collaborate and live. So maybe pay attention to your surroundings a little before you make heroic assumptions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC), corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought the discussion was closed, but OK. In both Muhammad Ali's and Yusuf Islam's articles, their previous names are used and are not considered taboos. As an encyclopedia we can't simply bow to every sensibility. Many Muslims find images of Muhammad deeply offensive, still we use them in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

We do use Elliot's deadname in this article, almost exactly the same way "Cassius Clay" is used in Mohammed Ali. MOS:DEADNAME is policy, not "taboo". And it and MOS:GENDERID were established by the WP community: nobody was "bowing" to anything. Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
"Clay made his amateur boxing debut in 1954", "Clay's amateur record was 100 wins with five losses", "third round Clay hit Liston". So you would support refering to Page as Ellen when talking about when still self-identified as a woman?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 02:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Captions

Could we incorporate for captions “E. Page” instead of just Page Adcamper92 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Use of surname to refer to subjects in practically every point past the lede is pretty ingrained in encyclopedic / Wikipedia stylization per MOS:SURNAME — IVORK Talk 22:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

consensus for the unnecessary use of pronouns

re special:diff/991875813 has there even been uniform agreement that it makes sense to spam pronouns unnecessarily into the early life section? I entirely understand why male pronouns are used out of respect in the lede since it's written in present-tense but pre-transition use of pronouns can mislead a reader as to how a person identified publicly during earlier stages of life. You actually don't need to use them at all, and by avoiding them there's less bait for vandals to swap into female pronouns. WakandaQT (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has commented yet, so I'll make the point that I feel it would be somehow untrue to this BLP subject to eradicate pronouns as has previously been done at Caitlyn Jenner. I think it might work to use "they" for early life and career and "he" for the lede, personal life and other sections, but that is a personal preference based on Elliot's pronoun announcement and he affordances offered by that. Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't eradicate pronouns; that would be treating trans people differently than cis people in BLPS. I see no reason to do that, except in contexts were it would be unclear whether "they" refers to the BLP subject or a group of people. As for the early life section, I think we should use the same pronouns as the rest of the article. Just as we wouldn't refer to someone by their old name when discussing their childhood, I think we shouldn't use a different pronoun than normal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The readers who may find this misleading are the ones who need to educate themselves on the appropriate ways to refer to trans ppl. (To this day, some ppl still think that using singular-they pronouns is confusing too). For concistency, we should use a single pronoun in the entire article (either "he" or "they" is fine, although I have a preference for "he"). - Daveout(talk) 01:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
When referring to trans people in the past tense, you generally want to use the pronouns they're currently going by unless they explicitly state otherwise, which Elliot hasn't. Alex Skye Kroy (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
In terms of WP policy, there is no doubt that any pronouns used have to be the ones Elliot prefers. But that leaves two questions: (1) whether to use pronouns at all, which is what this section's OP was asking (but I think it's obvious the article should) and (2) which of Elliot's preferred pronouns to use (and whether it has to be the same set throughout the article, or potentially different pronouns by section, or something different).
I feel like we should use them interchangeably when possible. For example, if you were to say "Elliot page applied for his first role in their hometown," then that's mildly confusing, but if you were to switch it out in a few paragraphs (or even sections) it would be simple and understandable. Avoiding pronouns entirely is impractical and unnecessary. We know which pronouns, we just need to figure out how to use them. Alex Skye Kroy (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

they meaning non-binary to Page

GLAAD wrote:

Today, Elliot Page, Oscar-nominated star of Umbrella Academy, spoke out about being transgender and non-binary on Instagram

This was followed by an embed of https://www.instagram.com/p/CIQ1QFBhNFg/

Unless I'm somehow overlooking it in that large paragraph in the middle, I'm not spotting any form of the term "binary" in that instagram post, so the best assumption I can make is that GLAAD is interpreting "pronouns as he/they" is being interpreted as speaking about being non-binary?

This makes me wonder if anyone who says "call me they" is necessarily non-binary though... are there any binary people who also are okay with being referred to as 'they' ?

Is it common for people who ID as non-binary to ask for the use of a gendered pronoun?

It makes me wonder how much OR is going on with media dubbing 'theys' as enbies vs people literally using the term for themself. Should we perhaps wait for Page to actually affirm that "non-binary" is an appropriate interpretation of the Instagram post given how the term is actually absent in it? WakandaQT (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep. They probably think that every queer people who uses "they\them" pronouns are necessarily non-binary. Even though most "they\them" queer ppl probably do identify as non-binary, that may not always be the case. See also: Talk:Elliot_Page#Non-binary - Daveout(talk) 03:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since Wikipedia considers these articles assuming enby based on pronouns as "reliable sources" even if the information may be incorrect, there's nothing we can do about the whole assumed nonbinary thing until/unless Elliot comes out and specifically announces trans man, nonbinary, or something else. The issue of course is that us reading Elliot's instagram posts for ourselves constitutes original research, so "here he didn't say he was enby" and "here they're reporting as if he had" carries little weight here. It's frustrating, but it's the box we're currently stuck in.
That said, he /did/ retweet GLAAD's post mentioning him being nonbinary, and if he were going to correct anything, that would have likely been the time. That made me feel a bit better about the whole thing... for him. The greater issue will need to ultimately be addressed elsewhere, I'm just not quite sure where. -- spazure (contribs) 04:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This makes me wonder if anyone who says "call me they" is necessarily non-binary though... are there any binary people who also are okay with being referred to as 'they' ? Is it common for people who ID as non-binary to ask for the use of a gendered pronoun?
Yes and yes. The latter especially so.  EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I want to point out the possibility that Elliot may not be very forthcoming in resolving their nonbinary and/or transmasculine status, because they seem to be a person who is tolerant of others using labels without necessarily endorsing them directly. For example, published accounts clearly show them identifying as "gay" between 2014 and 2017 and as "queer" from 2017 to present (though I'm not denying an overlap). But they also seem to have tolerated significant coverage as "lesbian" throughout this period, without contradicting it though also without clearly endorsing the label (that I can see, though I may have missed instances). So all this to say that while it would be convenient to have more direct information from the subject of the article, they aren't under any expectation of doing that for us :). Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond: Two Souls reviews

This article describes Beyond: Two Souls as "highly acclaimed". But the actual Beyond: Two Souls page describes the game as getting "polarised reviews", with a "mixed" reception on Metacritic. Maybe what we're trying to say is that Page's individual performance was highly acclaimed, regardless of what people thought of the game as a whole? I think this bears some clarification. Sonicsuns (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick thanks

Hey! This isn't a suggestion or major discussion, but as a trans user I just wanted to show how thankful I am that this page's editors have thrown support towards Elliot and trans people as a whole. Really makes me happy to see and probably a lot of other trans users too. :) Nekomancerjade (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nekomancerjade: Glad to hear! It's much better this time than in the past, that's for sure! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Deadname: birth name vs formerly known as

Per MOS:DEADNAME, mentioning the birth name in the lead is justified by Page's notability under that name. However, Page has never been known as "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page"; he was widely known/famous as "Ellen Page". Nowhere in the article is this stated explicitedly. In fact, without any prior knowledge, it is currently impossible for a reader to determine from this article under what name Page was previously known. (Compare, for example, Caitlyn Jenner; in the 'Early life' section, it is stated that "She was known as Bruce Jenner until June 2015.") I do feel that it's better to include this information in the lead, but if that's considered to give undue weight to the deadname, it could be mentioned in the Early life or Personal life section, for example.

I don't mean to start a new discussion about the deadname issue in general, it's just that I don't think this specific issue has been discussed yet (but correct me if I'm wrong). Lennart97 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you bring up an important wrinkle in the issue. Celebrities known under different names often follow the "born" wording, for instance Bob Dylan. However, if someone is transgender, we then have 3 names which may be relevant - their name at birth, the name they were formerly known by, and the name they are currently known by. The policy at MOS:DEADNAME only references the first and third of these, perhaps assuming that the first and second are going to be the same, which for many celebrities is not the case. It would be far too unreadable to put all three names in the first sentence. I think there is a case to be made for sections of life where all the sources use a particular name for wikipedia to also say something along the lines as "Newname (credited as Oldname)" or "Newname (then going by Oldname)" if there is risk of confusion for the reader. In fact, this current RfC may generate an adequate solution to the issue. Awoma (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Awoma: thanks for your reply. I agree with you that putting all names in the first sentence would be too much; but maybe it could be added to the last sentence of the lead instead, which is concerned with the coming out/transition? As for the RfC, I think the issue raised here is much more general, not just relating to actors and credits, so the outcome of the RfC will not solve this. But you rightly pointed out that the MOS is lacking here, so it seems to me like the MOS should be updated about the general issue of 'whether/how to include the deadname a person was formerly known by, as opposed to their birthname'. Lennart97 (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Jenner was never known as "William Bruce Jenner" either. I do think MOS:DEADNAME gets this wrong. If you are going to list dead names for subjects notable prior to transition, we should list the name under which they are notable, not their birth name. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Upon some further reading, DEADNAME seems to be undergoing significant sensible review, and I shouldn't have said it is "wrong." I think the best course under the policy is to remove the birth name and add a "credited as..." in the second or third sentence. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: I think adding the 'notable' deadname (Ellen Page) wouldn't be too controversial, since Caitlyn Jenner does the same. It's not just about how he is credited, but simply about how he was formerly known. I still think the last sentence of the lead would be suitable, perhaps something like Page publicly came out as a gay woman in February 2014. In December 2020, Page, until then known as Ellen Page, came out as transgender, announcing his new name as Elliot Page.
As for removing the birth name; that might be controversial, since including it is currently supported by MOS:DEADNAME, so I think it would be better to discuss a change of policy first. (Maybe it's best to do so after the current discussion at MOS:DEADNAME has calmed down a bit.) Lennart97 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I feel putting Elliot's deadname in the lede a second time would be giving it undue weight. I agree that including a sentence much like the second sentence in Caitlyn Jenner's Early Life section would make sense. I did include one in that exact format before, but it seems it was removed at some point since the page was moved to extended-confirmed. TJScalzo (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've (re-)added the name to the Early life section, since no one has provided any arguments against doing so. Lennart97 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2020

Remove the pictures as he is not a female and the pictures are feminine and need to be removed unless we can find more masculine pictures of him Waxq (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion of this above, but either way it is really not our place to be deciding how masculine or feminine someone looks in photographs. Awoma (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought that was why hotornot technology was developed in the first place. :p Newimpartial (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

I've got another line to add to the "personal life" section, preferable after the part noting several celebs which supported him:

However, several lesbians expressed slight disappointment over the announcement, due to previously viewing Elliot as a role model for lesbians.

Source: Urquhart, Evan (December 4, 2020). "No, Elliot Page Is Not "Abandoning" Lesbians". Slate. Archived from the original on December 5, 2020. Retrieved December 5, 2020.

Doomhiker (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure about how the phrasing should be for this - saying several lesbians leaves me asking who those specific lesbians are, and the Slate article uses A tiny minority of lesbian women, which isn't WP:NPOV. Gbear605 (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Per Gbear605's concerns, I'm setting this to answered. I would suggest trying to find more sources, and building up a consensus if the user still thinks this should be added to the article. Seagull123 Φ 19:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Details about schooling

Hello

I was working on the French version of this page that was originally translated from this page. The sentence "Page attended the Halifax Grammar School until grade 10, spent some time at Queen Elizabeth High School, and graduated from the Shambhala School in 2005." was translated into his 10th year (understood as age 10) instead of grade 10. While working on fixing that I started to have some doubt: should it be understood as "he stayed at Halifax grammar until the end of 9th grade and started at the high school in 10th grade" ? It seems more logical as the high school starts in 10th grade.

Is there a non-ambiguous source for that?

In the meantime, we are thinking at removing any reference to 10th grade in the French version and just list the three schools.

Thank you. Ngufra (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Well from my understanding of the French language (I'm not fluent, but has a decent understanding), in English while they are called Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, etc, in French they are called 1er annee, 2eme annee, 3eme annee (Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, etc). Now, an auto-translation via Google will mess that up since it translates words individually, which is why it translates to year not grade. I just tested it out and went to Google Translate and input "I am in Grade 5" and said translate to French. It put out "Je suis en 5e année". I then took that phrase and put it right back in the translator and it resulted in "I am in 5th year". So the same sentence got re-translated differently than it's original. So it is definitely Grade 10, not age 10 - just a Google Translating thing. I would just take out "sa" from the French article, then it should read unambiguously. Furthermore, given Page identifies as male, even if it was correct, it should be in the masculine tense 'son' not the feminine 'sa' RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ellen Page in first sentence

Okay, I guess a new discussion is needed for this. For the last few days, the first sentence of the lead stated both the full birthname ("born Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page") and "known as Ellen Page until December 2020". The second part was removed today by @Benmite:, with the argument The shortened version of their deadname is not actually a deviation of the birth name listed insofar as it's not a stage name or nickname, it's just the same name without the middle name or hyphen. I reverted this, but then my edit was reverted by @Bodney: saying no need to repeat old name in same sentence and not in bold twice. I'd argue the following:

  • Including the name Ellen Page is necessary, because Page was notable under this name, not under his full birth name. And it's not straightforward from the birth name that he would have been known as such; it's very common for people to be known by their second name, he might as well have used Philpotts as a last name, etc.
  • The birth name, however, isn't notable in itself, since no one has ever known Page by this name. It's included because it's standard practice to include a person's birth name along with date of birth in the first sentence, but that doesn't mean it's necessary to do so here.

My suggestion is then: if it's deemed excessive to include both deadnames in the first sentence, why not leave out the birth name and keep the name that is actually relevant (Ellen Page)? Then we still have exactly one deadname in the lead, but at least it's one that is useful for the reader. Lennart97 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME refers to a person's "birth name" and gives the example of "Chelsea Manning" as "born Bradley Edward Manning". It also says you can introduce the birth name using either "born" or "formerly". I'm not seeing any reason to ignore those guidelines, and I doubt that including a person's full name makes the content no longer "useful". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wallyfromdilbert: But MOS:DEADNAME doesn't recognise that sometimes people aren't known by their birthname. Imagine if Bob Dylan comes out as trans, choosing to go by a different name from now on. Following MOS:DEADNAME, the article would then have "born Robert Allen Zimmerman", without mention of the name Bob Dylan. Extreme example, I know, but I think it illustrates that MOS:DEADNAME is lacking here. And I'm not saying that "including a person's full name makes the content no longer useful" - I'm saying that if, to minimise deadnaming, we have to include only one deadname in the lead, we should go for the most relevant/notable version of the deadname. Lennart97 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
As I said, MOS:DEADNAME already gives the example of Chelsea Manning, and she was never known as "Bradley Edward Manning". I do not believe anyone is confused when they go to that article by the inclusion of her middle name in her birth name (or that anyone is confused by the "William" in Caitlyn Jenner's lead sentence that reads "born William Bruce Jenner"), which is why I don't think there is an issue with following the guideline. I disfavor "formerly" because to me that seems to imply just a change in name rather than a change in identity and would be a name that someone no longer actively uses but does not necessarily oppose being called. Including the dead-name twice in the lead sentence seems obviously inappropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
As far as Caitlyn Jenner is concerned - if I didn't already know she used to be known as Bruce, and we shouldn't assume readers know anything, I would likely have assumed from the lead that she used to be known as William. At the very least I'd then find out that I assumed wrong at the start of the Early life section, and not much further down. But just because in Page's case, I would have accidentally assumed correctly, doesn't mean there's no room for confusion. Apart from that, I've already stated that I'm not arguing for including the deadname twice in the lead sentence - just "Ellen Page" would do fine, there's really no encyclopedic importance to "Grace" and "Philpotts", which are already mentioned in the infobox and in the Early life section, anyway (maybe that's some excessive deadnaming). Also, the previous wording did not include "formerly", and it could be worded in any way that is deemed appropriate. Lennart97 (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm agreed with including the full birthname and the clarification of the name he used until recently, because of the argument you give. — Bilorv (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe using the person's Deadname twice and both times in bold in the first sentence is excessive and unnecessary. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bodney: And I don't necessarily disagree with that at all. I'm just wondering why, if the solution is to include the deadname only once, we should include the version of the deadname which no one knows the person by, as opposed to the version of the deadname which almost everyone knows the person by. Lennart97 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Lennart97: wallyfromdilbert already explained this as well as I could have hoped to, but I just want to expand on some of the points made. The argument that "sometimes people aren't known by their birthname" doesn't check out in this case. Elliot's deadname as it appears in the lead doesn't exclude the first or last name that he was known by before. Even with articles for cisgender people, this remains the case. Camila Cabello doesn't go by Karla Camila Cabello Estrabao, but since her stage name is just her middle name and her first family name, it would be redundant to make any clarification. Also, not only would it be unprecedented, but it would also conflict with how the page looked before, as Page's article never included anything other than his full name.
If this is meant to be a discussion on what should be done in cases where someone is known by a stage name and they come out as trans and that former stage name conflicts with their gender, that discussion should be held on the MOS:BIO page, not here, since, again, it doesn't apply. Benmite (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a tricky one which I think would be better covered by a review of the wider WP:DEADNAME policy, which clearly assumes that there is only one birth name or former name. While neither include the former name in the lead, Caitlyn Jenner article does include a "known as" line very early on, in the second sentence of early life. We currently have the line "His name was..." right at the end of the personal life section (which comes after the career section, where every single source uses this former name before we have introduced it). I don't agree that the names are "close enough" that we can just ignore this issue - plenty of people have very similar names, so even a very small difference from the expected name can be read as a different person, and should be accounted for to avoid reader confusion. It will be useful to have a standardised policy here, which applies to all cases of former name differing from birth name, and then our article will come under that policy. Awoma (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Benmite. If his previous "known as" name were significantly different from both his birthname and his current name, it would be important to include it too. But Ellen Page is just his birthname without middle names. This type of middle name suppression seems to be very common in english. I doubt that anyone would be confused by their omission. - Daveout(talk) 10:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Daveout: and @Benmite: I'm fine with raising this wider issue at MOS:BIO, though I think I'll wait with that a bit until the current frenzy of discussion over there has calmed down. What I'm still not really getting, though, is this argument that the name he was formerly known as follows straightforwardly from his birth name, and that there can be no confusion about it. The reason that likely nobody will be confused is that we're assuming everyone already used to know Elliot as Ellen, anyway, but I don't think we should assume any prior knowledge from any reader at all. The Camilla Cabello comparison does not help here, because the name of the article is Camilla Cabello! Obviously that's all the clarification one needs, but we don't have that here. But it does illustrate that it's very normal for people to go by a middle name, as Cabello does, and as for all a reader without prior knowledge knows, Page might as well have. Lennart97 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It is not true that "Ellen Page" is his birthname without middle names. His birth surname was the double-barreled "Philpotts-Page" - Philpotts is not a middle name. Awoma (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, my bad. - Daveout(talk) 14:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I don't exactly oppose including it, I just think that it isn't that important in this case. I still don't believe that someone who is aware of his birthname could be surprised or confused by seeing ppl referring to him as simply Ellen Page. - Daveout(talk) 14:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to talk about leaving this out. Page is best known as Ellen Page, became notable as Ellen Page, and is not known as Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page.
Of course there is confusion if only Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page is listed. People need to know this article is about the actor who used to be called Ellen Page. If you don't know who Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page is, you won't know that Elliott Page used to be Ellen Page.
All 3 names should be included - current name, birth name, and the name she became famous as.
MOSBIO is a guideline, not a policy. Use common sense, make exceptions etc. --hippo43 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
We already have "Ellen Page" redirects here...." on the page above the lead sentence "Elliot Page (born Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page; February 21, 1987) is a Canadian actor and producer." It is therefore totally unnecessary to repeat Eliots deadname for a third time and twice (and in bold). Are the readers so stupid they forget Elliot's deadname after reading it, twice already before the first sentence finishes. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone is stupid. However, the fact that Elliot Page became very famous as Ellen Page is one of the most significant facts about Page. It needs to be in the lead, not just noted as a redirect.
If someone doesn't really know who Elliott Page is, the first sentence needs to explain that Elliott Page is the famous person who used to be known as Ellen Page. --hippo43 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The article begins ....

Info box Born Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page February 21, 1987 (age 33)

Above the lead "Ellen Page" redirects here...."

followed by the first sentence of the lead "Elliot Page (born Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page; February 21, 1987) is a Canadian actor and producer."

and then a one sentence third paragraph of the short lead Page publicly came out as a gay woman in February 2014 and subsequently as transgender in December 2020, announcing his new name as Elliot Page.

to repeat in deadname yet again in the lead is excessive and unnecessary. ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue has arisen from the fact that Page's birth name does not match the name he went by formerly. The only example you give of his former name is the redirection notice, which wouldn't be there at all had there not been a singer called Elaine Paige, and does require some deduction work on behalf of the reader to conclude that what's given there is a name Page formerly went by - deduction work which could be avoided if we just said it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awoma (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME serves a valid purpose in blocking use of dead names, and a valid purpose in carving out an exception. Both of these intents are clear and laudable. But we are giving far too much deference to the specific text of the guideline when it has been recently revised and will likely be revised again shortly. Our most important rule, WP:IAR, exists to prevent this. We know what the guideline is trying to do: only allow dead names when it is highly beneficial to tie the target to reliable sources that predates their transition. We should remove all references to the birth name and list "Ellen Page" once in the lede. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been waiting and watching here, but I basically agree with this. I know there are those who think *all* birth names belong in that spot on BLPs, but the MOS already carves out an exception for deadnames that a person was not notable while using, and I would argue that the same exception applies to the birth name in cases where it differs from the actual name the person was using when they became notable with their deadname. I would regard this as following the (IMO, fairly clear on this point) intent of the MOS rather than the letter. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this is the best solution, as well. Thank you, @GreatCaesarsGhost:, for wording it so eloquently. Lennart97 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Darn it I was just about to post ....
MOS:DEADNAME states "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. Elliot Page was never notable under his birth name, so under this guideline we simply should not include his unnotable full birth name in the lead. The article begins:
Elliot Page[1] (born; February 21, 1987)[2] is a Canadian actor and producer, known as Ellen Page until December 2020.
This follows the guidance and might satisfy both sides of the above debate. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I feel like Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) is a Canadian actor and producer. is a cleaner, more concise formulation (the use of the word "formerly" is explicitly recommended by MOS:DEADNAME); but yes, I agree with the general approach here as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I implemented a version of the suggested change, as the discussion seems to have reached (or at least be in the process of reaching) a natural conclusion. Feel free to tweak it with "formerly" if you think that would be an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I tweaked it per Writ Keeper's suggestion. The 'until December 2020' part is already made clear by the last line of the lead, anyway, so this version is indeed preferable. Lennart97 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed much better. Cough & Smile: I now see that this is what you Lennart97 suggested at the very beginning of the thread. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Confirming support for the above developments :) Awoma (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that someone's birthname is relevant information in any biography. And it should be mentioned in the early life section. - Daveout(talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

While I understand that some editors hold your view, Daveout, there is already high-level policy support (in MOS:DEADNAME) to exclude from BLPs the deadnames which were not used by the BLP subjects while they were notable. I regard this as a version of the same principle: the version of the deadname to include is the one the person actually used while notable, not the name AAB, and there is no need (or policy-compliant requirement) to include both. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think that's consistent with MOS:DEADNAME, which says If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. TompaDompa (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with TompaDompa and Lennart97's tweaks. Page was not notable under his full birthname, so no need to include. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm no expert in MOS:DEADNAME but apparently it deals with birthnames only, and not the names they were normally referred to as. For example, Chelsea Manning was normally referred to as simply Bradley Manning back in the day, nevertheless her article mentions her full birthname "Bradley Edward Manning". I'm also not sure whether MOS:DEADNAME forbids mentioning dead names in the whole article, or just the lede (it only mentions the lede). - Daveout(talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The current version of the Chelsea Manning article long predates the current version of MOS:DEADNAME, at least where the presentation of the birth name is concerned. I'm not saying that article needs to be updated, but it probably isn't what would be done now and shouldn't be taken as a precedent, re: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The current version of MOS:DEADNAME is supposed to be clear that deadnames dating from before the period of Notability should not be mentioned at all, even if they are verifiable, but it doesn't give much guidance at the moment about how exactly deadnames from the period of Notability should be included. I would appreciate if we could wait for closures to the RfCs about articles where the trans BLP subject is mentioned (other then the main BLP article), and about deadnames in quotations, before starting another RfC asking for guidance about how to include deadnames from the Notability period. Editors can get burnt out on policy pages, too. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I rv'd TompaDompa's bold change to the article. There hasn't been a clear consensus. The changes go against several examples of trans people who were notable under their former names such as the Manning case brought here, Jenner and the Wachowskis. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I think both birth name and "Ellen Page" should be mentioned once. nyxærös 20:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted again; per ONUS, we are not to include contentious material without consensus (especially in a BLP); if consensus is reached here to include both, then fine, but restoring the second name in the lede prematurely would be a clear policy violation. Also note that this matter is covered by Discretionary Sanctions, not just as a BLP but also as a gender-related controversy. Let's not edit-war. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial, how is Page's birthname contentious? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The inclusion of the name AAB, under which the subject was never Notable, is contentious per this discussion and probably not compliant with MOS:DEADNAME. Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content and this falls under the heading Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion - it is meant to include all kinds of editorial disputes about policy and BALANCE, not just errors of fact. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying you want to remove the name "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page" because Page was only notable as "Ellen Page"? If so, it seems those in favour of that reasoning are just trying to find loop holes to not mention the name at all in the infobox or early life. I haven't looked into the Manning case all that much, but this seems to be the same reasoning that could get "Bradley Edward Manning" removed from those places given Manning was notable as "Bradley Manning". But because Page had a hyphenated last name we're really going to say let's not include it due to that technicality? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I am saying and no, I don't think I am trying to find loop holes to not mention the name at all in the infobox or early life - please AGF. We have an RfC, closed earlier in 2020, stating that deadnames under which a person did not become notable should not be included in article space (which definitely includes infoboxes, by the way). The specific case where the birth name differs somewhat, but not profoundly, from the notable name was not explicitly discussed in that RfC. It seems to me that the principle, "don't include deadnames with which a person was not notable", includes their name AAB if it differs from their (notable) professional name, and that principle should also apply to infoboxes. Yes, if this became the site-wide interpretation of the principle, that could be the end of "Bradley Edward Manning". But it might also be necessary to have another RfC at MOS:DEADNAME to figure this out, preferably after the ongoing ones are closed (for burnout reasons, as I have mentioned). Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) I mean, this talk page and this very thread are full of contention about it, parts of the ongoing discussions of the general deadname guideline are contention about it (besides the parts of those discussions and other myriad discussions that are contention about deadnames in general), that's ... the definition of contentious? -sche (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that including two versions of "Ellen" is excessive, and BOD makes an incisive point that the MOS does not support including the birth name here, if editors are arguing that "Ellen Page" is so different from the birth name to confuse readers who only see the birth name: in that case, the birth name doesn't meet the MOS criterion that "the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name". I would be inclined to accept mentioning either the birth name or "Ellen Page" as within the spirit of the guideline, but if people are really pushing to include both, then it becomes important that the most guideline-compliant approach would actually exclude both.
As an aside, the issue (of whether to mention both a person's full name and the portion of it they were notable under) sometimes comes up in the other direction if their full post-transition name is longer than the portion they're notable under, or even in both directions: we had some discussion at the Chelsea Manning article about how to avoid saying basically "Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, commonly known as Chelsea Manning, born Bradley Edward Manning, formerly commonly known as Bradley Manning". (You'll notice we did, indeed, avoid saying that, and limited the lead sentence to mentioning only two names.) -sche (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Birth name, used once, such as in the infobox, is standard in any biography. I don't believe we should ghettoize or treat trans people any differently than anyone else. I understand concerns about WP:DEADNAME for lower-profile individuals. For a public figure, whose birth name appears in virtually every reference source, I believe we have the presumption of treating them like anyone else — unless the subject himself says, "I don't want my birth name, which honors both my parents, to be used." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be a policy-relevant criterion. The community has already decided by RfC that the former names of trans people are to be excluded from article space - including from infoboxes - when the BLP subject was not Notable while using that name. As far as I know, there is also no justification for including a name in an infobox that is not otherwise included in the article. So unless there is a consensus for including the birth certificate name in this article, I think it should be removed from the infobox as well; what other reference sources do isn't really germane IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
It completely has to do with policy. The reason the policy exists is to protect trans individuals. That's the only reason. Elliot Page does not need protection with her birth name already widely known in any any other reference source you look at. The policy does not take an absolutist approach, but as with any Wikipedia policy is to be approached with common sense.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
In all the discussions over MOS:DEADNAME issues, it has never been decided that the deadname is only to be excluded for BLPPRIV reasons, or that the only reason the policy exists is to protect trans individials. That just isn't so. The RfC I am referring to was closed with don't be a dick as one of the relevant principles, and wikilawyering to get an extra version or an extra iteration of a deadname into an article, when Trans and non-trans editors are arguing that it is unnecessary and against policy, strikes me as the more absolitist approach and also potentially as a dick move. Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:DEADNAME governs all relevent BLPs in Wikipedia. Just because something is in a source does not mean we include it. MOS:DEADNAME is clear community policy that has decided that deadnames dating from before the period of Notability should not be included, even if they are verifiable ..."In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. and If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article,[e] even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
That section says, "If a subject changed their surname (last name) for whatever reason (e.g. marriage, adoption, personal preference), then their surname at birth should generally also be given in the lead." Elliot changed his name to a stage name for professional reasons. And to suggest that someone who disagrees with you is "being a dick" is uncalled for and insulting. Those of us on this side of the argument, and there are multiple of us, value this encyclopedia as much as anyone, and censoring or whitewashing widely known, pertinent, basic biographical information is — well, I won't use words like you did. I reiterate, we're supposed to use common sense. For his birth name to be in every other reference source but Wikipedia demeans and devalues what we're all doiing here.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
"If a subject changed their surname (last name) for whatever reason (e.g. marriage, adoption, personal preference), then their surname at birth should generally also be given in the lead." relates to MOS:NEE not MOS:DEADNAMING and all the examples relate to non trans people. Again ..."In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. and If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article,[e] even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Certainly, MOS:DEADNAME is not perfectly written at the moment - in fact, I wouldn't even call it entirely stable, since it was subject to edit-warring almost right up to the current RfCs. But I don't really see why you would take the general statement about former names - a statement that doesn't give gender identity changes as an example - as taking precedence over the part of MOS:DEADNAME that actually deals with gender-related name changes. Your argument that the birth name should accompany a stage name would be supported outside the context of gender-related name changes, but isn't clearly supported within that context.
And for the record, I don't question your committment to the project so please, don't question mine. The idea that I am engaged in censoring or whitewashing is unnecessarily incendiary and doesn't seem to be related to the facts at hand. I see this as an ethical conflict concerning multiple values, where provision of information is a value and avoidance of harm is another value. So from that perspective, any ruthlessness in pursuit of the former while ignoring the latter strikes me as potentially being a dick. That doesn't mean that I am taking the second value to be absolute, however, and I don't see how I would have given that impression. Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I find it hard to assess WP:GOODFAITH on your part when you unnecessarily and aggressively placed a warning label on my talk page just now. That is not the mark of someone discussing something rationally and dispassionately, but rather a shot across the bow: "You'd better agree with me, or else."
Editors of good faith are on each side of the argument. For you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you had "better watch their step" is uncalled for.
And you again make a passive-aggressive ad hominem attack on me and, by extension, others who disagree with you: "I don't dispute your commitment, but you're a dick." That is not honest intellectual debate, and if your position is so tenuous that you have to resort to such tactics, perhaps it's your own position that's wrong.
As for "avoidance of harm" — there is no demonstrable harm in including a name that has been widely used in reference sources for a couple of decades. This isn't a private citizen but a famous and highly public celebrity, and including this basic piece of biographical information cannot possibly harm him.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how you could read my previous comment and conclude from it that I'm saying you're a dick. This is why we have to discuss contributions and not contributors - and I was quite explicitly talking about editing choices and not the character of editors. I don't see how opposing wikilawyering to get an extra version or an extra iteration of a deadname into an article, when Trans and non-trans editors are arguing that it is unnecessary and against policy and referring to that as potentially a dick move is in any way ad hominem - the latter has to do with character-based arguments, and I don't think I've made any of those.

As far as the Discretionary Sanctions notice is concerned, it was not a threat or a warning, but simply a notice (in the required format) that gender-related disputes have been recognized by the arbs as a contentious area that need to be handled more carefully than most. I am well aware that I need to watch my step in gender-related disputes, and I appreciate when other editors are also aware, which is literally what the notice is for. Placing the notice is literally a necessary step in any gender-related dispute, so interpreting that as unnecessary and aggressive strikes me as more than a little bit strange.

And as far as harm is concerned, I am simply not convinced by glib arguments in the form but it's public information - which have been used precisely to harm trans people for decades. In my view, there are wider effects from the dissemination of any particular deadname and while these may be small, the value in including the name AAB is also quite small AFAICT. The availability of the name elsewhere doesn't really enhance this value either, as far as I can see. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted that you cannot see how placing a warning label on the talk page of an editor who has done nothing to you and has commented here in a normal, civil and hardly untoward tone, is unnecessary and aggressive. I've not insulted you, when you were the one who first used the phrase "don't be a dick." You chose to put that label on my talk page — there was no policy or guideline compelling you to do that.
There are editors on both sides of this argument. Your suggestion that if anyone disagrees with you they should be warned not to is uncivil at best, harassment at worst.
And let us please understand something: I have as much personal experience and connection with people across the spectrum as, probably, most other editors here. Look at Peppermint (entertainer) and see who took the photo in the infobox. It was me. I've partied with Peppermint. She follows me on Twitter. And that is one example of many that I could give. So your suggestion that I have no right to speak in a gender-related dispute unless you, personally, warn me to watch myself is simply remarkable.
A birth name is basic biography. There is no demonstrable or foreseeable harm in Wikipedia including something that every other reference source includes. You insult me by dismissing this reasonable and valid point as "glib." Please stop the dismissive, deflective terminology that obfuscates any honest discussion. And if my stating this in a simple, straightforward and hardly heated way is something for which you'll pursue sanctions, then do so and we'll each argue our case before an admin. Otherwise, I'd appreciate your removing that incendiary warning label from my talk page. It is unwarranted and uncalled for.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
RE: "The availability of the name elsewhere doesn't really enhance this value either, as far as I can see." Then you must not be a professional journalist, editor or biographer. Just because you, personally, don't see the value in something doesn't mean that professionals in this field do not. You're speaking from personal preference; I'm speaking from professional experience. Dismissing that out of hand is not weighing the case objectively.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the notice from your Talk page, as requested. I would also like to clarify that when I quoted the admin who closed the last MOS:DEADNAME RfC with don't be a dick I wasn't addressing that to you in particular; it clearly applies to us all. Nor do I believe that the rules around gender-related disputes only apply to editors I disagree with (who come in multiple flavors, BTW - I once had a long and protracted dispute with a Trans activist who was subsequently banned from the topic area). But let's not let this degenerate into a discussion of who has how many trans friends.
As a professional researcher, I am well aware of the value of rich and accurate reference sources; I suppose one place we differ is that I am less inclined to expect whatever I need all in one place. And FFS, I am not dismissing the argument to include birth names out of hand - I waited and watched this discussion for a long time before I felt the policy considerations to align in a certain direction, and I don't regard the info box issue as entirely settled - and it may not be, without an MOS RfC.
But what I do find annoying is experienced BLP editors wandering into gender-ID-related discussions and insisting that what they "know" - that birth names are basic...biographical information to be included regardless of context - should be the overriding value in BLP editing. The community has already rejected this absolutist view at RfC, and so the relevant question - for which I have no definitive answer - is what are the appropriate rules to decide which deadnames (including but not limited to birth names) an article should include. At the moment I, personally, am convinced that Ellen Page belongs but the AAB name does not, but I don't pretend that we have consensus here. What I do know is that you reverted twice on this (once fully, once partially) in contravention of ONUS, which is the main reason I thought it worth reminding you that all of us are supposed to meet higher standards on contentious issues. Newimpartial (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Just want to say thank you for your comments above. I'm glad we could clear up any miscommunication. As I said even before this comment above, I appreciate your discussing this with the understanding that both sides of this discussion are making rationale points, and keeping lines of communication open. Perhaps at this point, given your thoughtfulness and despite our disagreeing, you might be the right person to begin an RfC on this? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding whether to include the name in the infobox if not the article text: if we decided not to include a name anywhere in the text of the article, then the name shouldn't be in the infobox either because per WP:INFOBOX infoboxes are summaries of article content and shouldn't introduce novel content that doesn't appear in the article; "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored". This is straying rather far off the topic of the first sentence, though. -sche (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Harm caused by Deadnaming, you might not understand the harm. See Misgendering and Deadnaming here plus Deadname: What is deadnaming and who is guilty of it? or NewsWeek: Using Elliot Page's 'Deadname' is a Problem—Here's Why, the is no evidence that famous individuals are immune to it. (I personally witnessed the harmful effect on a friend who was deadnamed by the Daily Mail gutter press reports during her successful discrimination trial.) ~ BOD ~ TALK 03:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
That's in the article Transphobia, so to suggest that any editor who advocates normal biographical information that every other reference source includes is being transphobic is ... I'm going to say inaccurate and leave it at that. Elliot went highly public. He made extremely specific points. Censoring his birth name was not one of them. Perhaps rather than being absolutist, we should respect the subject's stance.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
If you have any sourced information that the BLP subject wants to promote their deadnames - either their birth or their professional name - perhaps you could share links? Because I haven't seen any such thing. In the absence of expressed intentions, we go by policy considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
If he had not wanted his birth name ever to be uttered, even in a reference source, he would have said so. He made all his other preference clear. You're arguing to prove a negative, while the concrete fact is that his statement says no such thing. It is assumption and presumption to say he wants something that we don't know he wants. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The article and other links were offered only help you to begin to understand the harm caused by naming, which you denied, based on no knowledge Eliot would suffer, simply because he is famous. Breaking news famous people hurt too. Elliot Page had little choice regard publicity. He requested that we address him only in male or neutral terms, he certainly did not say it was ok to address him using his former name. You are by now very aware that MOS:DEADNAME in trans BLP articles supersedes the use of normal biographical information by all editors. ~ BOD ~ TALK 03:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
(I was responding to the above when an e/c occurred. Placing my unaltered original statement in the spot to reply to Bodney) As any editor who has been here for years knows, MOS is not policy but rather a guideline that we are supposed to be with discretion and common sense. Don't take my word for it — here's what the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography says itself. "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (emphasis added) Arguing for absolutism is both unreasonable and goes against the directive of the MOS itself.
And I will say, while Newimpartial and I disagree, they're at least making an effort to discuss this as an issue with two sides and not making inaccurate statements of absolutism that the MOS itself does not make. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Following your argument ... What exactly is the overriding special need for an exception of the guidelines in this case~? ~ BOD ~ TALK 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Pertinent biographical information — and such basics as birthdate, birthplace and birth name are all equally pertinent — belongs in a biographical article unless there is concrete reason to exclude it. This case, Elliot Page, involves a highly public figure, whose birth name is entrenched in countless articles and reference sources, and who in a detailed statement specifying his other preference said nothing about quashing a birth name that honors both parents, and not just one parent.
If an exception isn't made for someone whose birth name appears in every other responsible reference source — and what is more responsible and respectable than the Encyclopedia Britannica, which has this Elliot Page article? — then no exception can ever be made. That kind of absolutism is not a part of the MOS, as the MOS itself says.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
So respectfully you offer No Actual real overriding noteworthy reason for an exception against the general BLP protective guideline apart from that due to his fame as an actor that the are still some older sources that include this what is in reality a minor non-essential detail. Verifiability (without notability) does not guarantee inclusion by itself. Elliot was never notable under his original birth name, but for his acting and other film work under his stage deadname.
The fact you personally believe we should be Honouring both of Elliot's parents has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. Do we even know his parents views? Seems to be an incredibly tenuous excuse/reason for ignoring the consensus guideline in this BLP (and all other articles). ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I offered reasoning, and yet, with Trumpian deflection, you say I offered no reason. How does one debate honestly when faced with such deflection? And a birth name, as any serious biographer knows, is not "a minor non-essential detail." To suggest so is simply inaccurate. Also, my quote about both parents' names clearly isn't a real quote, but giving an example of the kinds of things we don't know about the subject's thinking and should not make assumptions about.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Please I respectfully request that you not single me out and attack my character as an editor. I equally simply submit in simple English, the reasoning you presented includes gross assumptions, and that this is based on what you have openly admitted we have absolutely zero evidence. Regards Page's birth name User:Newimpartial, User:Lennart97 and User:Writ Keeper all once again, below, all provide strong arguments that out weigh what has been offered for inclusion in this article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Right, but our policies and guidelines in this area are not based on details of the preferences of the BLP subject, only their chosen name and gender identity. So there is no need for anyone to prove a negative. If the BLP subject has expressed disagreement with our policies concerning their deadnames, that would be a different issue. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The subject's wishes are relevant insofar that anyone here making claims of possible harm is simply speculating. The only concrete, objective thing we have to go by is the subject indicating no concern about this in a lengthy and detailed statement. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
With respect it is you who is blindly speculating. Page addressed his international fanbase via a heartfelt letter which included in black & white his actual fears as a trans man of actual harm ... "My joy is real but it is also fragile … I am also scared, scared of the invasiveness, the hate, the ‘jokes’ and of the violence.” ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
An aside: Did deadnaming occur after Page's letter: Following Page's letter, Elaine Page (the English musical actress known for Cats & Evita) trended in the UK because transphobes tried to “dead name” attack Elliot but ignorantly confused him with Elaine Paige. They should have used Wikipedia to get the right target. Such is the bigotry of the British trans-exclusionary/gender critical zealots that they did not bother to check if they had the right victim in their abusive Deadname hate attacks. Indepedent UK: Congratulations, Elliot Page – and sorry you weren’t given even one day to be happy before the backlash began ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of any specific trans person being harmed by uses of their deadname, it seems undeniable to me that deadnaming as a practice does harm to the trans community in general. For one thing, easy availability of deadnames provides ammunition for those who prefer to deadname living people. For another, providing deadnames as a matter of routine normalizes their use in general (one might say, encourages readers to feel they are entitled to the deadname) which then makes the subsequent use of deadnames to harass and undermine identities easier and more "normal". I am not at all saying that this is what you intend, Tenebrae, but when I refer to your argument as "glib" I am trying to communicate that there may be aspects to this that you have not entire!y thought through.
Anyway, what I am saying is that while MOS:DEADNAME is based in part on a recognition that deadnaming harms people, and my own position in this discussion is that the harm of repeating various deadnames needs to be weighed against the good of informing readers, neither of these criteria means that the policy treatment is conditional on specific harm to particular BLP subjects. There may be some forms of harm that can be demonstrated in certain cases, but the operation of these principles doesn't depend on proving that. Newimpartial (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I doubt that someone who really were to offend a trans person would stop just bc they didn't find their full birthname in an article. "Ellen Page" could be weaponized by transphobes just as easily (and there's no way to scrub that from the internet). By mentioning his former popular name instead of his birthname, we're simply opting for the least informative dead name. And an encyclopedia should preferably be as informative as possible. - Daveout(talk) 09:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
As informative as possible doesn't mean as much information as possible; it means as much relevant information as possible, since as we know Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mentioning the name Ellen Page is informative, because that name is relevant. What relevance does his birth name have, if he never used it for anything? It's not the most informative deadname, what it is is basically a piece of trivia. In general, including that piece of trivia does no harm, but in this case there are clear reasons for not doing so. Lennart97 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
↑↑This. The full birth name, even before Elliot announced that he is trans, was essentially trivia. I don't really understand the conclusion some people have made on this talk page that "Ellen Grace Philpotts-Page" is too different from "Ellen Page" to allow readers to infer that they refer to the same person, but if we grant that premise, then the full birth name has basically no encyclopedic value; just trivia. It does not serve to help or benefit the reader in any way, other than to provide a minor factoid. Nobody ever called or referred to him with that name, so there was no point in telling the reader about it aside from the fact itself. Now, for a person who isn't trans, that is okay; there's not much significant good, but also no real harm in having the full birth name, so we can err on the side of inclusion. (Obviously assuming that this hypothetical cis person is indisputably notable under their real name, there is plenty of real harm that can be done by using the real or birth name for a person who might not be.) But that's not the case for trans people; deadnaming brings the real possibility for harm. As the lede of WP:BLP states: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Obviously, that doesn't extend so far as to allow us to eliminate all mention of Elliot's former name; that would be a disservice to the reader, since Elliot was indisputably notable by their former name, and basically, that cat is out of the bag. But also including the birth name is doubling down on the potential harm, for almost no tangible benefit. We should err on the side of caution, which is basically BLP in a nutshell, and not include both names. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

To suggest that all other references sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica (see my link above) are out to do harm to Elliot by including the basic biographical fact of his birth name doesn't seem true. No other reference source — places run by professional biographers and researchers — agrees with that reasoning. Why do we want to make Wikipedia a fringe outlier in this regard? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I never said or implied they are out to do harm, and I don't think they are. What I do think is they are not concerned with the harm that they might cause in this case--a subtle but significant difference--and I don't think we should imitate them in that regard. To use a germane if perhaps overused example: until 1973, professionals listed homosexuality as a mental illness in the DSM. Being a professional doesn't make you right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
And here it comes, the discounting of "elite professionals." Yes, one could point to instances where professionals rightly evolved their views in light of new research. And one could point to 10X as many instances where the professionals' views have consistently remained correct. Anything anyone says in any encyclopedia might cause harm. That needs to be balanced with the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to provide pertinent facts — one of which is birthdate, birthplace and birth name. If the consensus of nonprofessional Wikipedia editors, over those of editors at professional reference books, is to make us an eccentric outlier in this regard, so that people need to go to Britannica or elsewhere to find pertinent facts, then I guess we'll be an eccentric outlier. I don't think that's good for Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, I disagree with your assertion that this information is pertinent, and "b-but Britannica!"-style appeals to authority without more interesting analyses are not really helpful IMO. Nobody needs to know Elliot's full birth name, that they have never been referred to as in the public eye, to gain an understanding of who he is, what he's done, and why people know about him. It's trivia, and it being present in Britannica does not change whether it's trivia or not. Which is not to say that Wikipedia should not contain any trivia at all, but when that's balanced with the possibility of real harm to a real human being, I don't see how the trivia is the more important consideration.
As an aside, I feel that your arguments would be very effective if you were arguing against someone who wanted to remove all instances of Elliot's former name from the article, since mentioning Elliot's former name in the article somewhere has indisputable encyclopedic benefit. But that's not the position you're arguing against. (For the record, that's not an accusation that you're using a strawman tactic; I don't think that's what you're doing.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Making fun of an another editor, and indirectly making fun of stutterers, is neither helpful nor civil. You've already made clear that the professional standards of real encyclopedia mean little to you. Your opinion of what a reader needs to know is completely at odds with professionals who operate not on opinion but on established professional ethics, values and practices. You're entitled to your opinion; we all are. But to say your opinion is more knowledgable and correct than those of people who do encyclopedia articles and biographies for a living is not.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I certainly didn't mean to make fun of people who have a stutter, directly or not, so please accept my apology for that. I wasn't referring to an actual stutter so much as the degree to which virtually everyone will make a false start on a word from time to time, but it's fair to read more into that than what I meant, so I'm sorry for that. For the rest, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know how I was making fun of you or any other editor--I admit to making fun of your argument, but not of you as a person or as a Wikipedia editor--and I don't know how I've "made [it] clear that the professional standards of real encyclopedia mean little" to me. Of course they matter, but they don't matter more than all other considerations. I'm also not saying that my opinion is more knowledgeable or correct than people who professionally write encyclopedias, and honestly I'm not sure where you're even getting that from. I'm not advocating marching into the head office of Encyclopedia Britannica and insisting they have to change their naming policies for thier articles. But this isn't the Encyclopedia Britannica, and we're not professional encyclopedia writers; we're allowed to do things differently than they would. This is one way in which I think we should do things differently, because like I said, I think the possibility for real harm by double-emphasizing a former name outweighs the trivial benefit of including both forms of the name. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Once again, Tenebrae, Wikipedia has already renounced the absolutist view of including all birth names, regardless of context. This isn't something that is being done just now, it is a community consensus that formed over time and was ratified in an RfC that closed in the last year, and it would take an equally strong or stronger consensus to overturn it, per CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. In this context, what I think would make sense would be a more specific RfC to decide more precisely whether and under what circumstances birth names, which were not used by BLP subjects at the point they became notable, should be included in articles (including in infoboxes), but the place to do that is at Talk:MOSBIO, and there are already two RfCs underway (about credited names and deadnames in quotations), and I would rather see those closed and the dust settle before launching into yet another deadname RfC.
But in any case, Wikipedia is a community-generated encyclopedia based on the 5 pillars, and that does mean that it is up to our community - rather than outside professional communities - to decide what our practices should be. I personally don't always agree with the result of this - I think the shift among journalists to use more accurate and less falsely "neutral" political labels is better than what went before, and so my personal version of NPOV would follow more closely the current standards of that professional community rather than our community's apparent preferences. But I recognise the principle that these issues are to be resolved based on our community's norms, not the norms of contemporary journalists, so I am not tempted to go on a WP:RGW crusade to "fix" what I regard as evasive language wherever it occurs. Not that what I do is perfect, but I'd encourage others to consider parallel approaches. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I think our ultimate viewpoints are more alike than not, so for my part I certainly wish we hadn't had a miscommunication earlier. I do want to clear up that my view is not "absolutist" — I've said from the beginning that for private individuals who wish their birth names unrevealed, that's a valid point. But for famous people, celebrities, whose names appear all over, in encyclopedias and mainstream magazines alike, and for whom that toothpaste is out of the tube — that's another story. So, really, please don't call me absolutist. I also believe it's not "righting great wrongs" to employ a virtually universal professional standard.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the full birth name from the infobox. The (main) argument in favour of inclusion has been that the full birth name is pertinent information that should generally be included in biographical articles. The (main) argument in favour of exclusion has been that Page was never known by the full birth name and that including it in addition to the name Page was actually known by formerly (this name is already included in the WP:LEAD) would constitute excessive deadnaming. To the extent that there is a consensus, it favours the latter argument. At any rate, WP:ONUS requires that disputed material have consensus for inclusion (The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.); in the absence of consensus, the disputed material is to be excluded. In general, the consensus here has been that including either the full birth name or the name Page was formerly known by is warranted, but not both, and only once. Which one we choose to include can be discussed further; currently, the discussion is leaning towards the name Page was formerly known by rather than the full birth name. TompaDompa (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with the only once if it was meant to apply to the whole article (though I agree that the deadname should be mentioned only once in the lede). Discussion on the MOS:BIO talk page has convinced me that the intent of MOS:DEADNAME is to restrict the deadname from appearing in the lede - and in article space - except under certain conditions, but not that the deadname should appear only once in the article, or should appear only in the lede. In the case of the current article, I think there are reasonable arguments for the inclusion of Elliot's deadname in one other section in addition to the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elliot_Page/Archive_2&oldid=1092045044"